C8 

Q_ 

.^ 

.5 

/? 

1c 

1 

* 

■a 

->»-,^ 

IE 

•~^ 

^ 

CL 

#W 

*s? 

fc 

O 

I 

to 

„ 

5 

o 

fe 

*-► 

o 

bfl 

P\ 

S 

< 
"a 

fc 

E 

o 

M 

( j 

-sj 

^* 

« 

CO 

& 

-»-* 
^ 

ft 

2 

3. 

O 

JO 

8 
^ 

« 

■a 

c 

8- 

£ 

to 

^ 

^sB 

?* 

^ 

^ 

7o755 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/doctrineofholyba 


BOOKS  RECENTLY  PUBLISHED 

BY 

HERMAN    HOOKER, 

S.  W.  Corner  of  Eighth  and  Chestnut  Streets, 
PHILADELPHIA. 

The  Sayings  of  the  Great  Forty  Days  between  the  Resurrection 
and  Ascention  of  our  Saviour,  regarded  as  the  outlines  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  in  Five  Discourses,  with  an  examination 
of  Mr.  Newman's  Theory  of  Developments,  by  George  Mo- 
berly,  D.  C.  L.,  Head  Master  of  Winchester  College  : 

This  is  the  work  of  one  of  the  profoundest  theologians  of  this 
age.  It  has  already  passed  through  three  editions  in  England, 
and  attained  the  place  of  a  standard  work  on  the  great  subject 
on  which  it  treats. 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  its 
Relation  to  Mankind  and  the  Church,  by  Archdeacon  Wil- 
berforce : 

This  has  been  styled  "  the  Book  of  the  Age."  The  "  Church 
Review"  says :— "  It  is  adapted  to  the  present  state  of  religious 
doctrine  throughout  nominal  Christendom.  It  is  a  thoroughly 
learned  book." 

First  Principles  of  the  Doctrine  of  Christ,  in  a  Series  of  Dis- 
courses delivered  in  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York, 
by  the  Rev.  M.  P.  Parks. 

This  is  an  earnest  and  faithful  declaration  of  the  Church's 
Doctrine  of  Baptism,  and  of  the  training  of  Children.  The 
spirit  of  olden  time  is  this  work. 

Bickersteth  on  the  Thirty-nine  Articles : 

This  is  a  work  which  deserves  to  be  better  known  than  it  is. 
The  Author  is  a  sound  Churchman.  He  sets  forth  the  Catholic 
sense  of  the  Articles  with  proofs  from  the  Fathers. 

A  Treaties  on  the  Church,  by  Thomas  Jackson,  D.  D. 
1 


THE 


DOCTRINE  OF  HOLY  BAPTISM: 


WITH  REMARKS  ON  THE  REV.  W.  GOOnE^ 


"EFFECTS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM." 
/ 

BY  ROBERT  ISAAC  '"WlLBERFORCE,  A.  M., 

ARCHDEACON  OF  THE  EAST  RIDING. 


"In  causa  duorum  hominum,  quorum  per  unum  venumdati  sumua 
Bub  peccato,  per  alterum  rerlimimur  a  peccatis,  proprie  fides  Christiana 
cons  is  tit." — S.  Acgustiajus. 

"Origincm  quam  sumpsit  in  utero  Virginisposuit  in  fonte  baptismatis: 
dedit  aqua),  quod  dedii  inatri." — S.  Leo. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PUBLISHED    BY    HERMAN    HOOKER, 

S.  W.  CORNER  EIGHTH  AND  CHESTNUT  STS. 

1S50. 


f 


'<e 


% 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION. 

NEW  GROUND  TAKEN  BY  THE  OPPONENTS  OF  BAP- 
TISMAL REGENERATION— ITS  INCOMPATIBILITY 
WITH  CALVINISM. 

Inconvenience  of  this  mode  of  arguing. 

1st,  As  creating  a  prejudice  against  the  Reformers. 
2dly,  As  creating  disaffection  against  the  Church. 
3dly,  As  involving  a  forgetfulness  of  the  Primi- 
tive character  of  her  Formularies. 

Tenets  of  the  Church  of  England  proved  hy  experi- 
ence not  to  be  identical  with  those  of  Continental 
Protestantism. 
Three  points  proposed. 

1st,  To  state  the  Church's  doctrine  on  Holy  Bap- 
tism. 
2dly,  To  show  that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
Primitive   Doctrine  of  Decrees,  or  even  with 
the  adoption  of  Calvinistic  phraseology. 
3dly,  To  show  that  our  Formularies  were  not 

compiled  by  Calvinists.  -  15-23 

CHAPTER  I. 

WHAT  REGENERATION  IS. 

It  implies  two  parties,  God  the  Giver  of  grace,  man  its 
receiver.  God  gives  grace  through  the  Mediator — 
by  whom  the  old  intercourse  of  nature  superseded. 

(v) 


VI  CONTENTS. 

The  Gospel  History  of  the  gift  of  grace.     Doxologiea. 
Man   receives  grace  through  the  New  Head  of 

our  race. 
Man's  common   nature  reconstructed — and   that 

in  all  its  parts. 
Opposition  to  this  change  through  surviving  con- 
cupiscence— and  from  the  individual  principle 
of  responsibility. 
Regeneration  is  Christ's  taking  up  his  dwelling  in  man.       24-40 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE  AS  TO  THE  TIME 
AND  MANNER  IN  WHICH  REGENERATION  IS  BE- 
STOWED. 

Gift  of  Regeneration  asserted  to  be  bestowed  in  Holy 
Baptism.      Preliminary  cautions.      Hooker's  state- 
ment.    Three  previous  objections  to  be  removed. 
1st,  The  inconsonance  of  the  means  to  the  end. 
2dly,    Supposed    interference    with   God's   sove- 
reignty. 
3dly,  The  want  of  practical  effect. 
Reply  to  the  third  objection — that  Baptism  the  gift  of 

means,  not  of  results. 
Need  of  improved  Church  discipline  and  Church  in- 
struction. 
Reply  to  the  two  first  objections — the  Mediation  of  the 
God-man  implies  that  God  has  decreed  to  bestow 
grace  through  Sacraments,  and  thus  renders  this 
mode  of  conveying  it  probable. 

Direct  evidence   from   Scripture  for  Regeneration  in 
Baptism.     Objections — 

1st,  That  grace  is  not  tied  to  Baptism, 
2d,  That  to  identify  Baptism  with  Regeneration 
derogates  from  Conversion  and  Faith. 
Answer  to  1st,  Baptism  our  means  of  union  with  the 
Humanity  of  Christ — not  only  the  removal  of  guilt, 
but  the  re-creation  of  nature. 
Answer  to  2d,  Conversion  and   Faith  needful  on  the 
part  of  men — Baptism  the  means  of  a  gift  on  the 
part  of  God.     Conversion   the   submission   of  the 
individual   responsibility  to  God's  will. — Regenera- 
tion the  renewal  of  the  common  nature.      -  -       40-61 


CONTENTS.  VU 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  EFFICACY  OF  HOLY  BAPTISM  ACCORDING  TO 
THE  AUTHORIZED  FORMULARIES  OF  THE  CHURCH 
OF  ENGLAND. 

The  Church  of  England  proposes  a  definite  view 
respecting  Holy  Baptism,  in  her  Offices  and  Cate- 
chism. 

This  view  must  be  accepted  by  those  who  employ  her 
Offices. 

Mr.  Goode  admits  that  our  Service  favours  a  belief  in 
Baptismal  Grace. 

Its  different  parts  shown  to  harmonize  with  this  belief.       61-71 

Mr.  Goode  objects  that  since  qualificati-ons  are  required 
in  adult,  they  may  be  required  also  in   Infant,  Bap- 
tism. 
He  adduces  three  qualifying  conditions  : — 

1.  Sentence  of  Election.     2.  Provision  of  Faith 
and  Repentance.     3.  Present  Faith. 
But  these  conditions  not  suggested,  as  they  should 
be,  by  the   Church's  words,  but  by  consideration 
of  the  parties,  i.  e.,  of  the  Giver  or  receiver  of 
Grace. 
The    Church's  unqualified  words   could  not   be  de- 
fended, because  her  words  might  have  been  qualified. 
3d  Condition. — Luther  did  not  attribute  actual  faith 
to  children,  but  supposed  the  seed  of  faith  to  be 
infused  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
1st  Condition. — Sentence  of  election  involves  the 

harsh  doctrine  of  the  Reprobation  of  Children. 
2d  Condition. — Rejected  on  account  of  its  Pelagian 

tendency.  .....       71-82 

These  conditions  put  forward  as  justifying  the  theory 
of  a  charitable  sense. 

Charitable  sense  not  applicable  cither  to  adult  or  in- 
fant Baptism,  because  should  be  applied  before 
Baptism  as  well  as  after  it:  whereas  tho  Church 
declares  meet  Catechumens  unregenerate,  and  does 
not  assert  the  salvation  except  of  baptized  infants. 

The  Church's  confidence   respecting  the  salvation  of 


Y1H  CONTENTS. 

baptized  infants,  limited  by  Mr.  Goode  to  the  child- 
ren of  devout  persons. 

This  limitation  contravenes  the  Church's  laws.     And 

the  intention  of  her  Offices.  ...     87-104 

Answer  in  the  concluding  part  of  the  Catechism  not 
designed  to  represent  the  efficacy  of  Baptism  to  be 
conditional. 

Such  an  interpretation  would  be  Pelagian. 

No  Sponsors  undertake  to  express  the  individual  voli- 
tions, but  only  the  legal  responsibilities,  of  the  in- 
fants whom  they  represent. 

Avowed  intention  of  Bishop  Overall,  and  of  the  Sa- 
voy Commissioners. 

Ironical  meaning  assigned  by  Mr.  Goode,  to  the  ex- 
pressions of  the  Catechism. 

Singular  agreement  of  uninterested   parties  respecting 

the  meaning  of  our  Church's  Offices.  -  -  104—116 


CHAPTER  IV. 

[THE  DOCTRINE  OF  BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION  OF 
PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE. 

Unfortunate  ignoratio  ehnchi,  which  has  led  some 
advocates  for  Baptism  to  depreciate  Regeneration  ; 
some  who  were  zealous  for  Regeneration  to  under- 
value Baptism. 

Belief  in  Baptismal  Regeneration  essential  to  a  due 
appreciation  of  Christian  responsibilities. 

Lis  connexion  with  a  belief  in  Our  Lord's  Mediation — 
as  affording  a  criterion  how  far  men  really  believe 
in  God's  influence  in  sacraments;  irrespective  of  the 
co-operation  of  the  human  recipient. 

The  Sacramental  system  the  means  whereby  the  Me- 
diator acts  upon  men. 

So  that  its  denial  leads  to  Pelagianism,  and  re- 
presents men  as  their  own  Saviours.  Baxter's 
testimony. 

A  difference  of  men's  phraseology  may  be  remedied  by 
explanation:  dilferences  in  belief  between  those 
who  reject  and  those  who  accept  the  doctrine  of 
Mediation  wili  be  only  increased  by  it.       -  -  116-142 


CONTENTS.  IX 


CHAPTER  V. 

HOW  FAR  BELIEF  IN  BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION  IS 
CONSISTENT  WITH  ADHERENCE  TO  CALVINISM. 

Necessity  of  considering  the  new  ground,  on  which 
Mr.  Goode  rests  his  opposition  to  Baptismal  regene- 
ration. 

His  three  propositions. 

The  doctrines  of  Predestination,  Election,  and  Perse- 
verance, rest  first  on  God's  Prescience  ;  secondly,  on 
His  Pre-appointment. 

God's  first  Decree  respecting  man  referred  to  his  state 
before  the  Fall. 

This  Decree  having  been  frustrated  through  the  Fall, 
God's  second  Decree  referred  to  that  New  Head  of 
man's  race,  by  whom  the  Fall  was  to  be  remedied. 

Its  object  the  elect  Head  and  His  members. 

It  does  not  supersede  the  individual  responsibility  of 
men,  but  refers  to  the  recreation  of  that  common 
nature,  which  is  communicated  from  the  Head  to 
His  members. 

It  insures  protection  against  the  kingdom  of  darkness. 
So  that  the  Church's  doctrine  of  Decrees  was  a 
shadow  cast  beforehand  by  the  facts  of  Mediation.  -  142-157 

God's  decreed  dealings  with  man  through  Mediation 
spoken  of  by  the  ancient  writers  as  regards,  1st,  the 
gift  of  grace,  2dly,  its  employment : — 

And  their  cause  supposed  to  vary,  as  does  their 
nature  ,•    regarded  as  a  gift   they  depend  upon 
God's  free  mercy  ;   regarded  in  their  employment 
man's  responsibility  is  included. 
St.  Austin's  dispute  with  the  Pelagians  respected  the 
manner  of  the  Divine  gift  of  grace;  whether  be- 
stowed according  to   the  law  of  Mediation,  or  the 
law  of  nature.     Therefore  it  left  human  responsi- 
bility untouched. 
Greater  difficulty  of  the  controversy  with   the  Semi- 
Pelagians;  respecting  Preventing  grace. 
St.  Austin's  early  notions  respecting  faith  inconsistent 
with  the  freeness  of  God's  gift  of  grace  : — At  a  later 


X  CONTENTS. 

period  he  refers  Preventing  grace  to  trie  Divine  gift 
through  the  Mediator,  so  as  not  to  be  independent 
of  the  Sacramental  system,  or  to  supersede  the  re- 
sponsibility of  man.  ...  157-169 

Calvin's  system  the  transference  of  God's  Decrees  from 
the  gift  of  grace  to  its  employment. 

Its  effect  to  destroy  man's  responsibility. 

His  object  to  dispense  with  the  Sacramental  system  of 
the  Church. 

The  influence  and  purpose  of  the  doctrine  of  Media- 
tion proportionably  interfered  with ;  and  thus  a  door 
opened  for  Pelagianism. 

St.  Austin  did  not  admit  the  characteristic  parts  of 
Calvin's  theory,  since  he  supposed  that  the  Media- 
tor acted  through  the  Sacramental  system;  and 
therefore,  that  God's  Decrees  referred  to  the  gift  of 
grace  through  man's  renewal  in  Christ. 

Belief  in  Baptismal  grace  the  criterion  whether  men 
adopt  that  part  of  Calvin's  system,  which  interferes 
with  the  doctrine  of  Mediation,  or  only  employ  his 
phraseology.  -  -  -  169-179 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   FORMULARIES  OF   THE   CHURCH   OF  ENGLAND 
WERE  NOT  DRAWN  UP  BY  CALVINISTS. 

Reasons  for   not  entering   upon    the  subject  of  the 

Articles. 
The  Service-Book  sufficient  to  decide  the  question. 
Three  especial  eras  in  its  history. 

I.  What  was  the  intention  of  those  who  compiled  it, 
a.i).  1548-9. 

Necessity  of  following  Mr.  Goode  in  his  inquiry  into 
the  sentiments  of  Peter  Lombard. 

The  efficacy  of  Baptism  universally  believed  by  Lom- 
bard's predecessors.     St.  Bernard. 

Lombard's  opinion  that  sanctification  arose  from  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Ghost;  he  asserts  fully  that 
grace  was  given  in  Baptism. 


CONTENTS.  XI 

This  truth  universally  admitted  in  the  Mediaeval 
Church.     Council  of  Vienne. 

Mr.  Goode  has  mistaken  the  doubt  entertained  respect- 
ing infused  habits  in  Baptism,  for  a  doubt  respect- 
ing Baptismal  grace. 

Hence  the  argument,  which  he  founds  on  Cranmer's 
language,  turns  against  himself. 

For  the  only  expressions  which  can  be  supposed  to 
connect  Cranmer  with  the  Calvinistic  system  were 
used  before  he  deviated  in  any  way  from  the  re- 
ceived opinions  of  the  Medieval  Church — therefore 
such  expressions  are  consistent  with  belief  in  Bap- 
tismal grace. 

The  expressions  in  the  "Institution  of  a  Christian 

Man,"  shown  not  to  be  really  Calvinistic.  -  -  179-215 

Cranmer's  Catechism  asserts  a  belief  in  Baptismal  re- 
generation. 

Its  statements  explained  by  Mr.  Goode  on  the  princi- 
ple (erroneously)  attributed  to  Luther,  that  infants 
possess  actual  faith. 

But  Cranmer  had  been  stated  by  Mr.  Goode  not  to 
entertain  this  opinion. 

Cranmer's  language  in  this  Catechism,  and  in  the 
Homilies,  decidedly  Anti-Calvinistic. 

Ungrounded  attack  upon  Archbishop  Laurence.  Mar- 
tin Bucer,  and  Peter  Martyr.  -  -  -  215-229 

II.  Second  era  in  the  compilation  of  the  Service-Book, 
A.i).  1604. 

Bishop  Overall  no  Calvinist. 

III.  Third  era.     The  Savoy  Conference. 

The  service  for  Adult  Baptism  confessedly  drawn  up 

by  Anti-Calvinists. 
The  Consecration  of  the  Water  inserted  in  opposition 

to  the  sentiments  of  Bucer.  -  230-239 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  ENGLISH  DIVINES  ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  THEIR 
BELIEF  IN  THE  EFFICACY  OF  BAPTISMAL  GRACE. 

Mr.  Goode's  Third  Proposition: — That  the  preva- 
lence which  the   Calvinistic  Doctrine  of  Absolute 


XH  CONTENTS. 

Decrees  at  one  time  attained  in  the  English  Church, 
is  incompatible  with  the  idea  that  her  formularies 
teach  Baptismal  Regeneration. 
Mr.  Goode  cites  passages  of  two  sorts,  1st,  expressing 
low  views  of  Sacraments.  2dly,  implying  a  belief 
in  Calvinistic  Decrees. 

I.  Authorities  of  the  first  kind  mistaken.  Jewell — - 
Davenant.  Former  perversions  no  excuse  for 
present. 

II.  Calvinistic  Decrees  held  nominally  by  Divines 
of  the  English  Church,  who  had  not  tested  their 
opinions. 

General  Course  of  Events.  Calvinism  either  outgrown 
through  the  progress  of  thought,  or  objected  to  in 
consequence  of  the  offensiveness  of  the  dogma  of 
Reprobation.     Bishop  Sanderson.  -  -  240-252 

Where  Calvinistic  Decrees  were  really  held,  the  doc- 
trine of  Baptismal  grace  was  not  necessarily  denied. 
Calvinism  kept  in  check  by  the  language  of  the 
Church.  Assertion  by  two  of  the  delegates  at  Dort, 
Davenant  and  Ward,  that  Calvinistic  Decrees  no 
hindrance  to  belief  in  Baptismal  grance.  Arch- 
bishop Usher's  concurrence. 

Three  principles,  which  influenced  men: — 1st,  Harsh- 
ness of  the  Doctrine  of  Reprobation  as  applied  to 
Infants.  2d.  The  Church's  language.  3d.  The 
language  of  Antiquity. 

Distinct  statements  of  the  universality  of  grace  by  Da- 
venant and  Ward. 

Mr.  Goode  explains  away  these  expressions,  as  mean- 
ing nothing  more  than  his  theory  of  infantine  re- 
ge?ieration. 

The  dispute  turns  upon  the  point  whether  all  infants 
are  subjects  for  Baptism. 

Mr.  Goode  denies  them  to  be  fit  subjects  for  Baptism, 
without  a  qualification. 

The  qualification  not  in  the  Giver  of  grace,  because 
this  would  imply  the  Reprobation  of  infants,  which 
Mr.  Goode  does  not  assert :  nor  in  the  condition  of 
receiver :  therefore  it  must  be  in  the  receiver's  cir- 
cumstances, i.  e.,  in  his  Parents. 

Therefore  children  supposed  by  Mr.  Goode  to  be  ac- 
cepted through  the  faith  of  their  Parents. 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

Effect  of  this  system  to  represent  the  Parents  as  Me- 
diators for  their  children  with  God  ;  and  thus  to  in- 
terfere with  the  prerogative  of  Christ. 

It  follows  that  none  but  the  children  of  consistent 
Christians  should  be  baptized. 

But  Ward  and  Davenant  were  opposed  to  such  a  re- 
striction, consequently  they  could  not  hold  Mr. 
Goode's  notion  of  the  "  infantine  regeneration"  of 
qualified  parties,  but  the  real  doctrine  of  Baptismal 
grace. 

The  same  inference  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  Canons 
and  usages  of  the  Church,  by  which  the  need  of 
a  peculiar  qualification  for  Baptism  is  excluded. 
Hooker's  judgment  adverse  to  Mr.  Goode. 

Therefore  the  efficacy  of  Baptismal  grace  was  fully  ad- 
mitted, even  by  those  who  were  supposed  to  receive 
the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Absolute  Decrees.    " 

God's  promises  must  not  be  explained  away  by  refer' 

ence  to  His  secret  counsels.  -  -  253 — 


CONCLUSION. 

Two  main  propositions  affirmed  by  the  Church. 

1.  That  God  bestows  grace  of  regeneration  through 
Baptism. 

2.  That  he  bestows  it  on  all  infants. 
Two  counter-theories. 

1.  Rationalistic — that  gift  never  bestowed  through 
Baptism. 

2.  That  not  bestowed  on  all  infants. 

The  second  theory  grounded  on  the  need  of  qualifica- 
tions. 

To  suppose  the  qualification  to  be  an  absolute  Decree 
of  the  Giver  of  Grace  involves  the  tenet  of  Repro- 
bation. 

To  refer  it  to  the  foreseen  excellence  of  the  receiver  or 
to  the  excellence  of  his  parents,  is  Pelagian. 

The  only  qualification  allowed  by  the  Church  is  the 

common  one  of  helplessness.  -  281-291 


THE  DOCTKINE 


OF 


HOLY    BAPTISM. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  controversy  respecting  Baptismal  Regene- 
ration has  of  late  assumed  a  new  form,  and  shifted 
the  ground  on  which  it  was  formerly  contested. 
Any  one  who  will  refer  to  the  writings  of  Arch- 
bishop Laurence,  one  of  its  main  advocates  in  the 
last  generation,  will  find  that  to  identify  the  de- 
nial of  this  doctrine  with  an  adoption  of  that 
which  he  represented  as  the  harsh  and  repulsive 
system  of  Calvinism,  was  among  his  constant  ob- 
jects. While  on  the  other  hand  his  opponent, 
Mr.  Scott,  asserts  distinctly  and  repeatedly,  that 
the  denial  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  has  no  sort 
of  connexion  with  the  obnoxious  tenets  of  Calvin. 
He  heads  his  pages  with  the  title — "  The  Ques- 
tion not  Calvinistic."  "Dr.  Laurence's  repre- 
senting the  whole  question  as  a  Calvinistic  one," 
he  notices  as  a  great  "  instance  of  unfairness  j?' 

(15) 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

and  he  sums  up  his  objections  by  saying,  "what 
pretext  can  there  be  for  asserting,  that  the  ques- 
tion whether  spiritual  regeneration  is,  or  is  not, 
inseparable  from  baptism,  has  any  necessary  con- 
nexion with  the  doctrines  of  absolute  predestina- 
tion, and  indefectible  grace?  The  assertion  has 
no  foundation  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  it  is 
directly  contradicted  by  fact."1 

Now,  that  a  certain  general  consonance  inclines 
those  who  hold  strongly  with  Calvin  to  take  low 
views  of  sacramental  efficacy,  can  hardly  be 
doubted ;  but  Mr.  Scott  is  an  unanswerable  wit- 
ness, when  he  asserts  that  the  theory  of  Calvin 
and  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Grace  are  not  so 
practically  irreconcilable,  that  those  who  adhere 
to  the  one  must  forego  the  other.  And  yet  this 
is  the  position  on  which  Mr.  Goode's  recent  work 
on  the  effects  of  Infant  Baptism  is  based.  The 
object  of  this  work  is  to  show  that  the  Church  of 
England  does  not  affirm  that  all  children,,  duly- 
brought  to  baptism,  are  recipients  of  grace.  This 
consequence  follows  at  once,  according  to  Mr. 
Goode's  opinion,  if  it  can  be  demonstrated  that 
those  who  compiled  our  Formularies  were  Cal- 
vinists.  "If,"  he  says,  "  it  shall  appear  (and  I 
believe  it  to  be  undeniable)  that  their  doctrine 
was  in  the  most  important  points  what  is  now 
called  '  Calvinistic,'  there  is,  or  ought  to  be,  an 
end  to  the  controversy  as  to  the  interpretation  they 
intended  to  be  given  to  our  Formularies,  both  as  it 
respects   Baptism,    and    several    other    points."* 

1  "  Reply  to  Laurence,"  by  the  Rev.  John  Scott,  p.  3  and  8. 
2"  The  Effects   of  Baptism   in  the  case  of  Infants,"   by   the 
Rev.  W.  Goode. 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

Thus  does  he  take  for  granted,  as  the  very  basis 
of  his  position,  that  which  Mr.  Scott  had  so  em- 
phatically denied. 

This  new  footing,  upon  which  Mr.  Goode  de- 
sires to  place  the  Baptismal  question,  is  open  to 
some  great  objections.  First — Its  effect  upon  the 
credit  of  our  Reformers  will  be  very  different  from 
any  thing  which  he  can  desire.  For  the  Formu- 
laries, which  they  have  left  to  the  Church,  are  a 
plain  record  of  their  public  declarations.  Now, 
if  these  are  not  to  be  taken  in  their  obvious  and 
apparent  sense,  because  the  Reformers  selected 
ambiguous  expressions,  which  concealed  from  an 
"  only  half-protestantized  people"3  (as  some  have 
worded  it)  the  full  theory  which  was  lurking  in 
their  own  minds,  what  will  result  but  the  con- 
viction that  they  taught  one  thing  and  believed 
another?  Yet  Mr.  Goode  is  compelled  to  ad- 
mit, as  the  issue  of  his  laborious  investigation  into 
the  language  of  our  Baptismal  Services,  that  "  the 
expressions  evidently  favour  the  notion  of  their 
referring  to  the  full  baptismal  blessing."  So  that 
his  authority  maybe  cited  by  those  opponents  of 
the  English  Reformation,  who  attribute  time-serv- 
ing and  dishonourable  motives  to  its  supporters. 
And  the  benefit  which  he  will  do  to  his  own 
friends  by  bringing  the  Reformers  over  to  their 
party,  will  be  far  less  than  the  injury  which  he 
will  do  to  the  Reformers  themselves. 

Secondly — It  has  hitherto  been  supposed,  that 
to  look  with  reverence  and  humility  at  the  Divine 


3Gorham's  "  Examination  for  admission  to  a  Benefice." — In- 
troduction, p.  28. 

2* 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

Decrees,  and  even  to  employ  language  respecting 
them  which  was  borrowed  from  the  school  of 
Calvin,  was  not  incompatible  with  en  entire  ad- 
mission of  all  which  the  Church  of  England  de- 
clared respecting  Baptismal  grace.  Man's  reason 
may  be  too  weak,  or  his  knowledge  not  suffi- 
ciently comprehensive,  to  enable  him  to  bring 
these  two  systems  together  with  logical  exactness. 
But  this  is  no  reason  w7hy  either  should  be  aban- 
doned. The  Doctrine  of  Decrees  has  been  as 
widely  held  in  the  Church  of  Rome  as  in  the 
Church  of  England.  And  it  is  to  be  regretted 
that  Mr.  Goode  should  attempt  to  revive  a  diffi- 
culty, which  was  in  great  measure  forgotten  ;  and 
should  tell  those  of  our  brethren  who  employ  the 
language  of  Calvin,  that  they  cannot  receive  the 
Baptismal  services,  in  that  sense,  which  (accord- 
ing to  his  own  wTords)  its  "  expressions  evidently 
favour." 

Thirdly — Mr.  Goode  seems  to  forget  that  the 
professed  purpose  of  our  English  Divines,  was  to 
reform  an  old  Church,  not  to  construct  a  new  one. 
Hence  he  supposes  that  those  theoretical  notions 
respecting  the  Divine  Decrees,  which  he  alleges 
that  our  Reformers  borrowed  from  foreign  sources, 
wTere  not  only  a  part  of  their  system  of  Divinity, 
but  the  whole  of  it.  Any  opinion  which  does  not 
range  with  the  system  of  Calvin,  he  lops  off  with- 
out question.  Now,  this  is  to  make  Calvinism 
not  only  a  part  of  our  Theology,  but  its  basis. 
Nor  w7ould  it  be  unjust  in  speaking  of  new  insti- 
tutions, like  those  introduced  at  Geneva  ;  since 
the  whole  code  of  laws  was  drawn  in  this  case 
from  one  original  mind,  and  they  present,  there- 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

fore,  the  perfect  impress  of  his  systematizing  rea- 
son. But,  however  Calvin  may  be  pretended  to 
have  influenced  our  theology,  it  cannot  be  al- 
leged that  he  created  it.  Are  the  laws,  usages, 
liturgy,  and  creeds,  which  had  been  handed  down 
from  early  times,  to  go  for  nothing?  Here, 
again,  we  may  refer  to  Mr.  Scott's  authority. 
"  Whence,"  he  asks,  "  did  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land derive  all  the  peculiar  language,  which  she 
employs  concerning  newly  baptized  infants  ?  She 
did  not  invent  it.  She  borrowed  it  from  primi- 
tive times.1'4  If  our  Church,  therefore,  had 
designed  to  admit  the  theory  of  Calvin  respect- 
ing God's  decrees,  it  does  not  at  once  follow 
that  she  must  abandon  the  doctrines  of  the 
ancient  Fathers  respecting  God's  promises.  Her 
position  is  wholly  different  from  that  of  a  society, 
which  had  agreed  to  take  its  laws,  ritual  and  faith, 
from  the  dictation  of  an  individual,  who  made 
light  of  the  ancient  succession  of  the  ministry, 
and  declared  the  venerable  Creed  of  Nice  to  be 
a  frigida  cantilena.  All  this,  however,  Mr. 
Goode  forgets,  when  he  assumes  that  the  theory 
of  Calvinism  is  the  basis  on  which  he  may  re- 
construct the  religious  system  of  the  Church  of 
England.  He  assumes,  in  the  face  of  all  evidence, 
not  only  that  Calvinists  modified  our  services, 
but  created  them.  Give  him  his  standing-ground, 
and  no  doubt  he  may  shake  the  whole  world  of 
our  Theology,  and  bring  down  upon  our  heads 
the  whole  fabric,  which  God's  Providence  has 
raised  upon  such  noble  pillars. 

4  Scott's  "  Reply  to  Laurence,"  p.  48. 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

The  conclusion,  then,  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land cannot  have  designed  to  retain  the  Baptis- 
mal doctrines  and  offices  of  the  ancient  Church, 
because  she  harmonized  with  the  Swiss  Reformers 
(which  is  the  sum  of  Mr.  Goode's  reasoning), 
may  be  exchanged  for  the  following  conclusion — 
the  Church  of  England  cannot  have  harmonized 
perfectly  with  the  Swiss  Reformers,  because  she 
retained  the  Baptismal  doctrines,  and  in  part  even 
the  baptismal  offices  of  the  ancient  Church.  And 
this  is  a  position  which  the  course  of  events 
renders  it  more  easy,  as  well  as  more  important, 
to  defend.  It  was  not  unnatural  that  an  affection 
for  the  country  of  their  temporary  adoption, 
should  have  induced  the  Marian  exiles  to  sup- 
pose that  the  system  of  their  own  Church  was 
identical  with  that,  under  which  they  had  en- 
joyed protection.  This  they  expressed  in  lan- 
guage, to  which  Mr.  Goode  refers  as  of  great 
moment.  But  how  is  it  possible  to  maintain  this 
opinion,  now  that  its  falsehood  has  been  proved 
by  the  result  ?  Whatever  notion  may  have  been 
entertained  even  in  the  last  generation,  yet  now 
that  the  French  revolution  has  unloosed  that  sys- 
tem of  coercion,  by  which  Europe  was  held  toge- 
ther, the  tendency  of  Continental  Protestantism 
cannot  be  mistaken.  The  hot  fit  of  enthusiasm 
has  passed  away,  and  the  true  enemy  of  the  Cross 
of  Christ,  the  chilling  apathetic  torpor  of  an  In- 
fidel Apostacy,  is  becoming  every  day  more  im- 
minent. Already  are  the  deadly  forms  of  unbelief 
apparent  around  us.  And  from  what  quarter  do 
they  arise  ?  They  refer  for  their  authority  to  the 
very  maxims,  which  were  introduced  with  other 


INTRODUCTION.  21 

ends  by  the  Continental  Reformers ;  and  their 
favourite  haunts  are  the  very  places  which  Piety 
and  Faith  were  supposed  to  have  chosen  for  their 
perpetual  homes.  This  is  surely  an  inauspicious 
moment  for  abandoning  those  ancient  doctrines, 
which  have  descended  to  us  from  Primitive 
times ;  and  for  reconstructing  our  theological 
system  upon  the  basis  of  that  Calvinistic  element 
which  is  said  to  have  been  intruded  into  it.  For 
why  is  it,  save  through  God's  blessing  on  these 
very  doctrines,  that  the  Inspiration  of  Scripture  is 
not  disbelieved  in  England,  as  among  the  Pro- 
testants of  the  Continent ;  or  that  our  Universities 
still  teach  that  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  which  has 
been  banished  from  the  pulpits  of  Geneva  ?  We 
are  secured,  therefore,  against  the  system  of  Cal- 
vin, by  observing  its  effects ;  we  shrink  from  ad- 
mittingpropositions  to  be  theoretically  true,  which 
have  been  shown  to  be  false  by  their  consequences. 
By  this  feeling  only  is  the  present  writer  induced 
to  interfere  in  this  controversy.  Those  great  men 
wTho  advocated  the  Church's  doctrines  in  other 
generations  seem  to  have  entertained  different 
apprehensions.  Baptismal  Regeneration  was  re- 
garded by  many  of  them  as  a  safeguard  against 
that  excessive  ethusiasm,  which  they  supposed 
to  be  the  prevalent  danger.  But  were  this  the 
main  reason  for  asserting  the  reality  of  Sacra- 
mental gifts,  it  would  be  superfluous  to  vindicate 
them.  For  whatever  dangers  may  be  apprehended 
on  the  side  of  enthusiasm,  it  is  so  little  consonant 
to  the  spirit  of  the  times,  that  it  were  better  to 
address  ourselves  to  the  cure  of  more  pressing 
evils.     The  question  at  issue  in  the  present  day 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

is  the  reality  of  Our  Lord's  mediation ;  the  truth 
of  that  system  of  spiritual  influences,  which  was 
bestowed  by  the  re-creation  of  man's  race  in  the 
Person  of  the.  Son  of  God ;  and  that  whole  doc- 
trine of  Grace,  which  is  characteristic  of  the 
Gospel.  If  it  should  be  true,  as  was  always  be- 
lieved in  ancient  times,  and  as  will  be  stated  in 
these  pages, that  "sacraments  are  the  extension  ot 
the  Incarnation ;"  that  through  their  agency  the 
Son  of  God  effects  that  great  work,  which  He  took 
our  nature  to  discharge,  it  will  not  seem  surprising 
that  where  the  sacramental  system  has  been  under- 
valued, those  great  truths  to  which  it  bears  such 
near  relation,  should  also  be  forgotten.  Hence  is 
a  true  belief  in  Baptismal  grace  as  intimately  allied 
in  theory  to  the  doctrines  of  Atonement  and  ot 
Mediation,  as  history  shows  that  they  have  been 
practically  connected.  To  this  point  it  is  then 
that  I  would  especially  call  attention  in  the  pre- 
sent work.     I  propose 

First — to  set  forth  that  doctrine  of  Holy  Bap- 
tism, which  the  Church  of  England  has  received 
from  ancient  times.  Whatever  may  be  supposed 
to  be  her  estimate  of  Calvinism  ;  the  existence  of 
a  distinct  theory  of  Holy  Baptism  is  an  inde- 
pendent fact  which  cannot  be  disputed. 

Secondly — I  shall  point  out,  that  the  doctrine 
of  Divine  Decrees  is  not  really  inconsistent  with 
the  primitive  doctrine  of  Baptism  ;  and  that  there 
is  a  certain  point,  up  to  which  even  the  language 
of  Calvin  may  be  employed,  without  entrenching 
upon  it.  So  that  there  exists  no  reason  why 
theories   respecting  the  secret  counsels  of  God 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

should   indispose   men   to   believe  His  general 
promises. 

But  then  I  shall  show  thirdly — that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  Calvinistic  system  was  not  adopted 
by  those  persons,  by  whom  our  Formularies  were 
constructed. 


24 


CHAPTER  I. 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS. 


The  order  which  I  propose  to  adopt  in  the  fol- 
lowing remarks,  is  first,  to  consider  what  regene- 
ration is;  and  then,  what  is  taught  by  Holy 
Scripture,  and  by  the  Church,  respecting  the 
manner  of  its  communication.  This  will  lead  to 
the  inquiry  how  far  Baptismal  Regeneration  is 
of  practical  importance  ;  and  whether  its  admis- 
sion is  compatible  with  the  principles  of  Cal- 
vinism. 

At  present,  then,  I  ask  what  is  meant  by  Re- 
generation ?  It  has  always  been  understood  to 
refer  to  some  gift  of  grace  bestowed  by  God,  the 
result  whereof,  is  the  renewal  of  man's  nature. 
So  that  it  has  reference  plainly  to  two  parties ; 
God,  who  bestows  grace,  and  man,  who  receives 
it.  And,  therefore,  its  full  explanation  must 
involve  the  consideration  of  both.  In  what  way 
does  God  bestow  grace  ?  In  what  way  is  man 
its  receiver?  Let  these  two  points  be  deter- 
mined, and  a  definition  of  Regeneration  will  be 
attained. 

In  what  way,  then,  does  God  bestow  those  gifts 
of  grace,  which  avail  for  the  renewal  of  man's 
nature  ?  They  are  expressly  stated  to  be  bestowed 
through  the  mediation  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity. 
"  There  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS.  25 

God  and  men,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus."1  This  is 
the  manner  in  which  divine  gifts  flow  forth  into 
the  world.  "As  long- as  I  am  in  the  world,  I  am 
the  light  of  the  world."3  For  "this  is  the  record, 
that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this 
life  is  in  His  Son."3  Not  only  is  the  intervention 
of  the  Son  of  Man  the  only  channel  through  which 
the  prayers  of  man  can  ascend  to  God,  (because 
pardon  and  access  have  been  purchased  through 
the  sufferings  of  the  only  perfect  possessor  of 
Adam's  being,)  but  through  this  road  is  it  specifi- 
cally declared  that  the  gifts  of  God  find  their  way 
to  the  creature.  "  If  through  the  offence  of  one 
many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and 
the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus 
Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many."4 

And  this  system  of  mediation  is  declared  to  be 
a  new  way,  by  which  the  old  way  of  nature  is 
superseded.  For  an  old  mode  of  intercourse  there 
was,  whereby,  according  to  the  constitution  of 
nature,  man  was  designed  to  receive  gifts  from 
God.  In  what  this  old  mode  of  intercourse  origin- 
ally consisted  is  not  revealed,  but  something  we 
may  learn  of  it  from  those  traces  which  it  has  left 
in  man's  nature.  For  this  first  intercourse  with 
God  was  plainly  connected  with  that  creation  of 
man  in  God's  image,  which  was  the  primary  law 
of  his  being.  And  there  are  two  ways  in  which 
this  original  composition  of  man  has  left  its  effect 
upon  his  present  nature.  The  first  is  the  existence 
of  conscience ;  the  possession,  that  is,  on  the  part 
of  man,  of  a  certain  inherent  judgment  respecting 

1  1  Tim.  ii.  5.  *  1  John  v.  11. 

2  John  ix.  5.  4  Rom.  v.  15. 

3 


26  WHAT    REGENERATION  IS, 

right  and  wrong.  Such  a  rule  of  judgment  could 
nave  no  authority,  unless  it  rested  on  that  main 
law  of  man's  nature,  which  has  his  origin  in  God's 
image  reflected  in  the  creature's  mind.  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  it  as  "  the  work  of  the  law  written  in" 
men's  "hearts."5  And  St.  John  tells  us  that  it 
was  not  a  law,  the  perpetual  maintenance  where- 
of had  been  trusted  only  to  human  powers  :  it  was 
preserved  by  the  abiding  influence  of  that  all- 
pervading  Word,  who  never  totally  forsook  the 
beings  which  He  had  created.  This  was  that 
Word  or  creative  wisdom,  of  which  we  read  that 
"  My  delights  were  with  the  sons  of  men."  And 
its  influence  is  declared  to  have  been  the  illumi- 
nating principle  in  the  world  of  nature.  "In  Him 
was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men." 

Now  the  result  of  this  partial  perpetuation  in 
man  of  his  Maker's  Image,  was  the  preservation 
likewise  of  a  measure  of  that  intercourse  with 
God,  which  in  the  first  instance  had  doubtless 
oeen  full  and  unrestricted.  That  we  are  able  to 
hold  intercourse  with  our  brethren,  results  from 
that  identity  of  nature  between  us  and  them, 
whereby  we  and  they  are  capable  of  interchang- 
ing our  ideas,  and  the  thoughts  of  one  man  are 
capable  of  being  estimated  by  another.  Even  so 
was  the  power  of  holding  intercourse  with  God  a 
consequence  of  that  formation  of  man  in  God's 
image,  which  transferred  into  him  an  intellectual 
mind  and  a  moral  nature.  And  if  the  intellect  be 
found  to  survive  even  in  bad  men,  yet  it  cannot 
reach  its  proper  perfection  without  the  develop- 

5  Rom.  ii.  15. 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS.  27 

ment  of  that  moral  principle,  with  which  it  has  a 
common  origin.  But  that  the  two  together — the 
mind  at  large — -regarded  both  in  this  moral  and 
intellectual  capacities,  has  some  peculiar  mode 
of  holding  intercourse  with  its  Maker,  is  directly 
witnessed  by  its  own  consciousness,  and  is  con- 
firmed by  the  Holy  Scriptures.  For  what  wras  se- 
cret prayer,  as  a  rite  of  heathen  religion,  but  the 
intuitional  reaching  forth  of  the  mind  after  its  in- 
visible Creator  ?  It  showed  a  conviction  that  the 
thoughts  of  our  minds  are  present  as  a  perpetual 
object  to  the  Supreme  Intelligence.  And  the  same 
feeling  is  often  evidenced  at  the  present  day,  in 
those  who  undervalue  Christian  ordinances.  "  I 
need  no  public  worship  "  a  man  says,  "for  I  can 
walk  forth  into  the  open  field,  or  lonely  valley, 
and  there  my  soul  rises  up  to  my  Maker,  and  I 
apprehend  His  present  influence  on  my  mind." 
This  cannot  be  denied  to  be  a  natural  feeling, 
and  if  we  could  be  saved  by  nature,  nothing  more 
could  be  desired.  It  is  to  recognize  the  fact  that 
the  mind  is  the  appointed  channel,  through  which 
man  was  designed  to  hold  immediate  intercourse 
with  God.  And  this  principle  is  confirmed  by  those 
passages  of  scripture,  which  speak  of  the  spirit  of 
man  as  though  capable  of  direct  communication 
with  other  spiritual  intelligences,  whether  good  or 
evil.  "Ananias,  why  hath~Satan  filled  thy  heart  ?" 
And  so  we  read  that  "the  Lord  stirred  up  the 
heart  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia."  And  the  same 
conclusion  follows  from  the  activity  of  the  men- 
tal powers,  while  the  bodily  organs  are  dormant. 
"A  thing  was  secretly  brought  to  me,  and  mine 
ear  received  a  little  thereof.  In  thoughts  from  the 


28  WHAT    REGENERATION    IS. 

visions  of  the  night,  when  deep  sleep  falleth  upon 

men Then  a  spirit  passed  before  my  face."5 

All  this  is  the  admission  of  a  great  truth,  that 
the  mind  is  an  open  door,  whereby  we  commu- 
nicate with  the  Invisible.  And  this  intercourse  is 
built  upon  that  all-pervading  action  of  the  Eternal 
Word,  which  was  the  original  light  of  our  being. 
And  since  "  all  good  gifts  and  all  perfect  gifts 
are  from  above,"  we  may  be  assured  that  from  His 
influence,  whether  through  the  seeds  which  He  has 
inspired,  or  through  the  power  whereby  He  fosters 
them,  comes  all  the  good  which  the  system  ot 
nature  can  display.  This  then  is  the  old  road  ot 
nature  ;  this  the  channel,  through  which  light  was 
originally  transmitted  from  God  to  man.  Now  the 
law  of  mediation  is  the  substitution  of  a  new 
channel  of  intercourse  instead  of  this  old  one.  The 
law  of  grace  is  given  in  place  of  the  law  of  nature. 
The  old  door  of  access  had  been  shut  or  obstructed 
by  sin  ;  therefore  in  the  Manhood  of  Christ  was  a 
new  door  opened  to  mankind.  This  is  that  "  new 
and  living  way,  which  He  hath  consecrated  for  us, 
through  the  veil,  that  is  to  say  His  flesh."  The 
Gospel,  therefore,  is  the  disco  very  of  that  new  mean 
of  approach  to  God,  whereby  the  old  method  of 
approach  was  superseded.  Its  publication  is  the 
history  of  that  great  change,  by  which  this  new  law 
of  communion  with  God  was  substituted  for  that 
which  had  been  bestowed  upon  Adam  at  his 
creation.  It  is  the  history  of  the  gift  of  grace. 
For  of  grace,  wherby  is  meant  GooVs  love  in  action, 
we  hear  but  little  comparatively  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  that  little  is  connected  generally  with 
6  Job  iv.  15. 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS.  29 

those  typical  rites,  whereby  the  minds  of  men  were 
carried  onward  to  the  coming  Saviour.  With  the 
Gospels  begins  the  further  dispensation"  of  grace. 
Yet  in  the  Gospels  we  read  of  no  general  gift  ot 
grace  to  mankind  :  its  season  was  not  yet  arrived  : 
the  womb  of  time  was  still  pregnant  with  the  gift 
which  was  to  ennoble  the  whole  human  family. 
What  then  do  the  Gospels  say  of  grace  ?  They 
speak  of  its  communication  to  that  heir  of  man's 
race,  to  that  representative  of  humanity,  in  whom 
those  spiritual  blessings  were  still  gathered  toge- 
ther, which  were  soon  to  be  diffused  throughout 
His  brethren.  Every  mention  of  grace  in  the 
Gospels  refers  to  its  communication  to  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus,  the  One  Mediator,  in  whom  were 
concentrated  those  gifts,  which  He  afterwards 
imparted  to  mankind.  "  The  child  grew — and  the 
grace  of  God  was  upon  Him  !"  "  And  we  beheld 
His  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  of  the 
Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth."  The  Gospels 
then  speak  of  grace,  not  as  bestowed  on  humanity 
at  large,  but  on  the  Humanity  of  Christ.  For  it 
was  the  appointment  of  Infinite  Wisdom  that  this 
gift  was  not  bestowed  from  Him  to  others,  till 
humanity  had  first  been  perfected  in  Himself.  "  It 
became  him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by 
whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many  sons  unto 
glory,  to  make  the  Captain  of  their  salvation  per- 
fect through  sufferings. "  Though  the  Humanity 
of  the  Second  Adam  had  by  nature  been  pure 
from  spot,  yet  was  suffering  the  appointed  course 
through  which  it  was  perfected  for  the  work  of 
mediation.  "  For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  Myself,  that 
they  also  might  be  sanctified  through  the  Truth." 
3* 


30  WHAT    REGENERATION    IS. 

Thus  did  that  Manhood,  which  was  taken  in  the 
Virgin's  womb,  become  a  meet  instrument  for 
leavening  the  whole  mass  of  corrupted  nature.  And 
this  work  being  perfected,  we  see  the  new  Adam, 
who  like  His  earthly  predecessor  "  had  been  made 
a  little  lower  than  the  angels,  crowned  through  the 
suffering  of  death  with  glory  and  honour."  And 
then  did  "  He  ascend  up  on  high,  and  having  led 
captivity  captive,  gave  gifts  unto  men."  That 
which  He  had  received  because  He  was  human, 
He  had  power  to  give  because  He  was  Divine. 
Thus  did  He  bestow  upon  all  His  members  that 
gift  of  grace,  which  had  hitherto  centred  in  Him- 
self. Therefore  do  we  read  for  the  first  time  re- 
specting our  Lord's  disciples,  "  great  grace  was 
upon  them  all."  In  this  manner  was  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  which  had  hitherto  had  its  dwelling  in 
the  New  Head  of  humanity,  bestowed  upon  His  Body 
of  the  Church.  The  love  of  God  had  flowed  forth 
into  the  Manhood  of  the  Incarnate  Son,  that  thence 
it  might  diffuse  itself  through  His  brethren. 

This  law  of  mediation  is  recognized  in  all  those 
Doxologies  which  the  Apostles  communicated  to 
the  Church.  They  taught  men  to  speak  of  the 
grace  of  Christ,  not  of  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  be- 
cause it  was  the  Second,  not  the  Third  Person  of 
the  Ever-blessed  Trinity,  who  became  the  Incar- 
nate Mediator  from  whom  Divine  gifts  were 
transmitted  to  His  earthly  brethren.  Such  state- 
ments do  not  derogate  from  the  work  of  the 
Blessed  Spirit,  nor  detract  from  His  Personality: 
they  only  reveal  that  law  whereby  it  has  been 
His  good  pleasure  to  regulate  His  dealings  with 
mankind  in  the  economy  of  grace.   For  the  office 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS.  31 

which  God  the  Holy  Ghost  was  pleased  to  dis- 
charge in  this  work  of  mercy,  was  to  be  the  agent 
whereby  men  might  be  joined  to  that  Manhood  of 
the  Son,  which  was  the  appointed  channel  of 
graces.  As  this  work,  therefore,  had  its  beginning 
in  the  Father's  love,  so  was  the  consecration  of 
the  Son's  Humanity  its  second  stage,  and  the 
communication  of  His  hallowed  manhood  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  its  consummation. 
"  The  grace  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  be  with  you  all."  Such  is  the  course 
wrhereby  God  is  pleased  to  bestow  those  gifts 
which  regenerate  mankind.  This  is  the  new 
channel  of  intercourse  which  had  been  opened  to 
us  in  Christ.  When  the  old  road  of  nature  had 
been  dammed  up  by  sin,  this  wTas  provided  in  its 
stead.  Through  the  manhood  of  Christ  is  this 
blessing  extended  to  mankind.  Thus  do  divine 
gifts  enter  into  humanity.  Their  beginning  was 
"  God  in  Christ  reconciling  unto  Himself  the 
world  ;"  their  end  is  "  Christ  in"  us,  "  the  hope 
of  glory." 

But  to  turn  to  the  other  question  :  how  does 
man  receive  the  gifts  of  grace  ?  Now,  wrhen  scrip- 
ture tells  us  in  what  manner  God  bestows  His 
gifts,  it  tells  us  also  in  what  manner  man  receives 
them.  The  channel  through  which  God  bestows 
them,  must  of  necessity  be  the  same  through 
which  they  are  received  of  mankind.  Since  in 
the  manhood  of  Christ  are  centred  all  the  bless- 
ings of  Mediation,  from  the  manhood  of  Christ 
must  they  emanate.  To  admit  this  is  but  to  re- 
cognize that  great  truth, which  is  everywhere  set 


6%  WHAT  REGENERATION  IS. 

forth  in  Holy  Scripture,  that  the  Gospel  was  not 
the  mere  publishing  of  a  new  Law,  but  the  be- 
stowing of  a  new  Creation.  "  If  any  man  be  in 
Christ  he  is  a  new  creature,  old  things  are  passed 
away,  behold  all  things  are  become  new."  For 
herein  did  the  true  heir  of  man's  race  differ  from 
all  other  teachers  either  of  a  true  or  false  Theo- 
logy. Their  object  has  been  either  truly  or  pro- 
fessedly to  reveal  God's  will,  and  to  quicken 
those  capacities  whereby  men  obey  it.  But  He 
who  was  himself  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life, 
in  whom  dwelt  all  the  Godhead  bodily,  did  not 
come  merely  to  stimulate  men's  powers  or  to  aug- 
ment their  knowledge,  but  to  reconstruct  the  very 
foundations  of  humanity  in  Himself.  Thus  are 
His  brethren  u  complete  in  Him,  which  is  the 
Head  of  all  principality  and  power."? 
<  If  we  look,  then,  at  "  the  Man  Christ  Jesus," 
as  that  "one  Mediator"  through  whom  gifts  are 
received  by  men,  we  find  Him  revealed  to  be  the 
New  Head  of  Man's  race,  "the  beginning  of  the 
Creation  of  God,"  "  the  first-born  of  every  crea- 
ture." This  character  pertains  to  Him,  not  in 
order  of  time  but  in  order  of  relation.  For  in 
order  of  time  He  had  been  preceded  by  the  crea- 
ture, whom  himself  had  fashioned ;  but  when 
"  the  fulness  of  time  was  come,"  He  who  had 
made  all  things  as  The  Wo)*d,  took  our  flesh  that 
He  might  re-make  it  as  Mediator.  He  who  by 
nature  was  "before  all  things,  and  by  whom  all 
things  consist,"  vouchsafed  to  be  "  the  Head  of 
the  Body,  the  Church  ;  that  in  all  things  He  might 

'Col.  ii.  10. 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS.  33 

have  the  pre-eminence."  Thus  did  He,  who 
filled  all  things  by  nature,  vouchsafe  in  respect  of 
His  earthly  being  to  receive  that  as  a  gift  which 
pertained  to  Him  by  inheritance.  li  It  pleased  the 
Father  that  in  Him  should  all  fulness  dwell."8 
Thus  did  He  become  the  Second  Adam,  in  whom 
the  deep  foundations  of  humanity  were  again  con- 
structed. So  that  through  Him  and  in  Him  do 
men  receive  that  gift,  wThich  by  him  God  bestowed 
upon  his  creatures.  "  For  if,  by  one  man's  of- 
fence death  reigned  by  one  ;  much  more  they 
which  receive  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift 
of  righteousness  shall  reign  in  life  by  one  Jesus 
Christ."" 

Now,  that  we  may  understand  more  complete- 
ly what  it  is  which  men  receive  in  Christ,  we 
must  bear  in  mind,  what  is  that  mysterious  nature 
of  which  they  are  the  inheritors.  We  find,  then,. 
in  every  child  of  Adam  certain  appetites,  affections, 
and  intellectual  powers.  What  they  are  it  is  not 
to  our  purpose  to  inquire,  but  they  are  plainly 
numerous  and  dissimilar.  And  they  are  bound 
together,  not  merely  by  their  allianceto  that  ma- 
terial structure,  which  is  called  the  Body,  but  by 
some  unknown  principle  of  Personality,  by  reason 
whereof  this  complicated  mass  can  in  each  case 
be  dealt  with  as  an  individual  being.  But  though 
thus  inherent  in  individuals,  these  appetites,  af- 
fections, and  powers,  are  not  a  mere  accidental 
adjunct  to  the  man  who  exhibits  them.  For  they 
make  up  his  nature — the  possession  of  them  is 
the  link  which,  more  than  ought  else,  binds  him 

8  Col.  i.  17— 19.  s  Rom.  v.  17. 


34  WHAT   REGENERATION    IS. 

to  his  species ;  they  re-appear  in  every  type  of 
the  class,  and  their  relation  to  the  common  race 
gives  them  an  especial  claim  to  attention.  This 
may  be  seen  by  the  appeal  which  is  continually 
made  to  the  judgment  of  the  race,  as  giving  au- 
thority to  some  individual  conviction.  When  it  is 
said  that  ingratitude  is  universally  felt  to  be  a 
crime,  what  is  this  but  to  refer  to  the  judgment 
of  mankind  at  large  respecting  a  certain  class  of 
actions  ?  And  on  this  principle  depend  the  whole 
of  what  may  be  called  our  intuitive  powers.  Their 
validity  rests  upon  their  relation  to  that  common 
nature  of  our  race,  which  refers  them  to  God's 
voice  speaking  through  that  constitution  which 
He  bestowed  upon  our  first  parent ;  and  not  to 
the  mere  caprice  of  individual  inconsistency. 

Now,  when  man's  race  is  said  to  have  been  re- 
constructed ;  the  change  spoken  of  is  not  one 
which  at  the  time  affected  every  individual,  ex- 
cept so  far  as  it  affected  that  common  nature, 
which  was  borne  by  the  Head  as  well  as  by  the 
members,  and  which  admitted  therefore  of  recon- 
struction in  Him.  How  this  change  was  to  be  ex- 
tended to  others  ;  by  what  means,  and  under  what 
law,  childern  are  born  to  the  Second  Adam,  shall 
be  stated  in  the  next  Chapter  :  the  question  now 
before  us  is  the  change  itself;  that  re-creation  of 
our  common  nature  which  was  effected  in  Christ, 
whereby  man  became  the  recipient  of  those  gifts  of 
grace  which  God  bestowed  through  his  mediation. 
And  here  the  thing  to  observe  is,  that  the  alteration 
must  have  been  one  which  affected  all  the  parts 
of  man's  common  nature;  whereby  their  consti- 
tution was   changed,   and    their  objects  altered. 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS.  35 

Take  first  the  affections  and  intellectual  powers. 
On  these  depends  the  exercise  of  love  and  faith. 
Both  love  and  faith  are  principles  inherent  in 
man's  nature,  and  were  exercised  in  reference  to 
those  realities  which  have  always  been  around 
him.  But  the  love  and  faith  of  Christians  have  not 
only  been  re-fashioned  through  the  agency  of 
those  gifts  of  grace  which  were  bestowed  on 
humanity  in  the  Mediator,  the  objects  also  with 
which  they  are  conversant  are  other  than  were 
offered  to  them  before.  They  were  God's  gift  to 
the  natural  man  ;  they  are  God's  gift  through  the 
Mediator.  Their  object  was  the  Parent  Spirit  of 
the  Universe;  their  object  is  God  in  Christ,  re- 
conciling to  himself  the  world  through  the  Incar- 
nate  Son.  To  believe  in  the  Gospel  is  not  merely 
to  appreciate  the  wisdom  of  its  laws,  and  the  ex- 
cellence of  its  examples — it  is  not  merely  to  re- 
verence Christ,  because  He  first  taught  the  lessons 
of  universal  philanthropy,  and  exhibited  in  His 
Person  a  purity  which  was  never  equalled — all 
this  is  to  believe  in  Christianity,  not  in  Christ ;  it 
is  to  recognize  the  excellence  of  the  Gospel,  not 
to  have  a  saving  faith  in  the  Mediation  of  the  Son 
of  God.  Faith  in  Christ  is  that  exercise  of  the 
faculty  of  belief  which  is  not  only  a  Divine  gift 
transmitted  through  the  Mediator  to  His  brethren, 
but  which  apprehends  Him  as  the  God-man,  whose 
sacrifice  is  the  only  satisfaction,  His  grace  the 
only  remedy  for  human  ills.  It  is  to  believe  that 
truth,  goodness,  and  grace  have  flowed  forth 
through  this  channel  from  above,  and  that  only 
through  the  New  Head  of  our  race  are  they  to 
be  received  by  mortals.    And  so  is  it  likewise  re- 


36  WHAT    REGENERATION    IS. 

specting  the  love  of  God,  which  under  the  system 
of  nature  might  have  expended  itself  on  the  ab- 
stract excellencies  of  the  first  Great  Cause,  but 
which  must  now  find  its  object  in  that  manifes- 
tation of  God.  in  the  flesh,  through  whom  only  it 
can  travel  upwards  to  the  Eternal  Father. 

So  much  respecting  the  intellect  and  affections 
of  mankind.  But  are  these  the  only  parts  of  man's 
nature  which  require  to  be  reconstructed  ?  Must 
he  not  be  wholly  reformed  ?  For  was  he  not 
wholly  fallen  ?  As  wide  surely  as  Adam's  sin, 
must  be  Christ's  mediation.  Is  not  the  degeneracy 
inherited  from  our  first  parent  more  expansive  in 
its  influence  than  the  affections  and  understanding 
of  man  ?  Does  it  not  reach  to  his  appetites  also  ? 
Are  they  not  perverted,  clamorous,  excessive  ?  Is 
not  this  to  be  seen  in  cases  in  which  the  under- 
standing is  not  developed  ?  Did  not  "  death 
reign  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  them  that 
had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression ?"  Infancy  would  otherwise  surely  be 
free  from  those  pangs,  to  which  at  present  it  is  so 
peculiarly  obnoxious.  There  must  certainly  be  some- 
thing in  man  which  is  capable  of  reconstruction, 
independently  of  those  powers  of  reasoning  and 
those  affections  of  the  heart,  which  are  employed 
in  our  riper  years  on  the  realities  of  religion.  For 
not  only  do  infants  show  by  their  sufferings  that 
they  are  "by  nature  children  of  wrath,"  but  the 
Apostle  declares  them  capable  of  being  translated 
into  a  different  state.  "  Else  were  your  children 
unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  It  is  plain,  there- 
fore, that  the  whole  of  man  not  only  needs  recon- 
struction in  Christ,  but  is  susceptible  of  it.     The 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS.  37 

new  creation  extends  to  it  all.  All  the  parts  of 
that  common  nature  which  is  borne  by  every  child 
of  Adam,  were  re-fashioned  in  the  Head  and  model 
of  the  Christian  family,  that  the  renewal  of  our 
nature  in  Christ  might  extend  likewise  to  them  all. 
And  has  their  object  been  attained  ?  Is  man  thus 
perfectly  restored  in  Christ  ?  Such  will  doubtless 
be  the  case  with  that  Church  of  the  elect,  in  which 
hereafter  will  be  developed  the  full  privileges  of 
the  Gospel.  Into  that  state  shall  enter  nothing 
which  offends,  nor  any  that  do  iniquity.  But  in 
the  present  condition  of  things,  until  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  just  and  the  unjust,  such  a  consumma- 
tion is  prevented  by  two  circumstances.  For,  first, 
though  a  new  nature  has  been  bestowed  on  man  in 
Christ,  yet  the  old  one  has  not  been  extinguished. 
The  "  corruption  of  nature  doth  remain,  yea  in 
them  that  are  regenerate."  We  read,  indeed,  that 
"  they  that  are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh, 
with  the  affections  and  lusts."  Yet  is  crucifixion 
but  a  lingering  death,  by  which  our  members  which 
are  upon  the  earth  are  only  gradually  mortified. 
And,  secondly,  it  is  to  be  considered  that  in  man 
there  is  something  besides  this  common  nature 
which  has  been  reconstructed  in  Christ.  For  man 
does  not  consist  only  of  those  appetites,  affections, 
and  powers,  which  are  the  common  heritage  of  his 
race.  He  does  not  consist  only  of  a  certain  quantity 
of  these  materials,  dug  out  of  the  mine  of  human 
nature,  and  shaped  into  that  form  which  is  proper  to 
his  kind.  There  is  in  each  man  some  simple,  single, 
indivisible  principle,  which  invests  him  with  that 
individuality,  whereby  he  is  distinguished  from  his 
fellows.  There  could  not  otherwise  be  that  re- 
4 


38  WHAT   REGENERATION    IS. 

sponsibility,  which  God  has  stamped  upon  every 
child  of  Adam.  For  it  is  this  individual  being 
which  renders  each  man  an  accountable  agent,  and 
which  thus  brings  home  to  himself  the  awful  re- 
sponsibility  of  rejecting  or  accepting  the  Gospel. 
Wherein  this  principle  consists  it  does  not  belong 
to  the  present  subject  to  inquire  ;  what  are  its  rela- 
tions to  the  will  and  the  consciousness,  are  curious 
but  irrelevant  topics ;  the  point  under  consideration 
is  that  this  principle  of  Personality  is  something 
distinct  from  that  common  nature,  which  is  re-con- 
structed in  Christ  Our  Lord  ;  that  let  men's  oppor- 
tunities be  small  as  under  the  law  of  natural 
religion,  or  great  as  under  the  Gospel,  there  is  in 
each  case  an  ultimate  principle  of  responsibility  in 
themselves.  Now,  unless  this  responsibility  of 
their  owTn  yields  to  the  suasion  of  the  renewed 
nature,  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel-gift  do  but 
increase  their  condemnation.  "  If  we  say  that  we 
have  fellowship  with  Him,  and  walk  in  darkness, 
we  lie  and  do  not  the  truth."  And  therefore  is 
it,  that  belief  and  love  are  needed  on  our  part,  for 
the  acceptance  of  that  gift  of  a  renewed  being, 
which  is  bestowed  upon  us  through  the  mediation 
of  Christ.  These  graces,  indeed,  being  good,  are 
God's  gift  ;  but  they  are  a  gift  which  does  not  ex- 
clude human  responsibility;  and  to  which,  there- 
fore, the  accountable  principle  must  assent.  For 
where  the  will  of  the  individual  opposes  itself  by 
unbelief  and  impenitence  against  God's  blessing, 
His  streams  of  mercy  lose  their  saving  effect. 
u  The  earth,  which  drinketh  in  the  rain,  that 
cometh  oft  upon  it,  and  bringeth  forth  herbs  meet 
for  them  by  whom  it  is  dressed,  receiveth  blessing 


WHAT    REGENERATION    IS.  39 

from  God.  But  that  which  beareth  thorns  and 
briers  is  rejected,  and  is  nigh  unto  cursing;  whose 
end  is  to  be  burned.' '  On  this  account  it  is  that 
Repentance  and  Faith  are  spoken  of  as  necessary 
on  our  part,  if  we  would  profit  by  those  blessings 
which  the  Gospel  bestows.  Not  that  these  things 
are  possessed  in  themselves  of  a  meritorious  effi- 
cacy, Which  can  give  to  sacraments  a  virtue  which 
they  do  not  already  contain,  or  which  can  supply 
the  place  of  those  actual  gifts  of  grace,  which 
through  the  One  Mediator  are  bestowed  upon 
mankind.  Repentance  and  Faith  have  no  power 
of  condignity ',  as  some  men's  language  would  seem 
to  imply,  to  impart  to  Baptism  an  efficacy,  which 
by  Christ's  institution  it  did  not  before  possess. 
But  the  necessity  of  these  qualities  is,  that  their 
absence  from  the  adult  mind  is  equivalent  to  that 
state  of  repugnancy  against  the  Gospel,  which 
renders  its  blessings  unavailing.  And  therefore 
it  is  that  in  this  state  of  probation,  the  blessings 
of  a  re-created  nature  are  not  only  possessed  im- 
perfectly by  the  best,  through  the  opposition  of  a 
conflicting  concupiscence  ;  but  by  many  are  alto- 
gather  rejected  through  the  hardness  of  an  im- 
penitent and  unbelieving  will. 

The  considerations  which  have  been  adduced 
will  supply  an  answer  to  the  question — What  is  re- 
generation ?  It  is  the  effect  of  that  gift  of  grace, 
which  the  Father  of  all  mercies  was  pleased  to 
embody  in  the  Manhood  of  the  Incarnate  Son,  that 
thereby  Humanity  at  large  might  be  re-constructed  ; 
and  which,  in  Him  and  by  Him,  is  received  by 
those  happy  members  of  the  family  of  man  to 
whom  the  Gospel  comes,  and  by  whom  it  is  not 


40  TIME   AND   MANNER 

rejected  through  unbelief  or  impenitence.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  the  general  influence  of  the  Divine 
Power,  but  the  gift  bestowed  through  the  Me- 
diator :  neither  is  it  the  mere  promulgation  by 
Christ  of  a  better  law,  but  His  re-creating  presence. 
Nor  yet  is  it  attained  by  all  men,  nor  even  by  all 
to  whom  it  is  offered ;  but  by  those  to  whom  it  is 
given  of  God,  and  who  do  not  reject  it.  It  is 
Christ  taking  up  His  dwelling  in  man.  "  For  in 
Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing 
nor  uncircumcision,  but  the  new  creation  ;  and  as 
many  as  walk  according  to  this  rule,  grace  be  on 
them  and  mercy,  and  upon  the  Israel  of  God. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE  AS  TO  THE  TIME    AND 
MANNER  IN  WHICH  REGENERATION  IS  BESTOWED. 

The  question  which  I  now  proceed  to  ask,  is, 
What  is  told  us  in  Holy  Scripture  respecting  the 
time  and  manner  of  Regeneration  ?  Now  it  will  be 
here  maintained,  that  it  is  the  revealed  law  of  God's 
kingdom,  that  this  act  is  brought  about  in  Holy 
Baptism.  But  it  may  disengage  the  subject  from 
difficulties,  if  certain  consequences  are  first  dis- 
avowed, which  are  sometimes  supposed  to  be  asso- 
ciated with  this  assertion. 

First,  no  limit  is  assigned  to  the  sovereignty  of 
Almighty  God,  whereby  He  works  among  the  armies 
of  heaven,  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  accord- 
ing to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will.     The  present 


OF    REGENERATION.  41 

inquiry  has  reference  only  to  the  kingdom  of  grace, 
and  to  the  laws  and  system  which  it  has  been  His 
pleasure  to  reveal  to  us. 

Again,  in  speaking  of  Sacraments  as  means  of 
grace,  it  is  not  implied  either  that  they  possess  any 
efficacy  in  themselves,  or  that  they  convey  benefit 
except  to  meet  receivers.  For  their  influence  is 
regarded  as  Altogether  subordinate  to  the  fact  stated 
in  the  last  Chapter,  that  the  motive  cause  of  Re- 
generation is  God  Himself,  reconciling  to  Himself 
the  world  through  the  Incarnate  Son.  So  that 
their  outward  elements  are  allowed  not  to  have 
the  slightest  tendency  to  produce  those  results, 
which  are  wrought  through  them  by  the  immediate 
power  of  God. 

Again,  as  the  cause  of  this  efficacy  lies  wholly  in 
God,  so  it  is  fully"  allowed  that  they  produce  no 
beneficial  effect,  if  they  are  opposed  by  the  unbelief 
or  impenitence  of  the  responsible  beings  by  whom 
they  are  partaken. 

These  questions,  then,  are  not  raised — that  which 
is  raised  is  simply  this — whether  it  is  God's  will  so 
to  associate  the  exercise  of  His  spiritual  power  with 
certain  external  symbols,  that  where  these  last  are 
duly  partaken,  men  always  participate  in  those 
gifts  which  were  bestowed  upon  humanity  at  large, 
through  the  mediation  of  Christ.  The  opinion 
which  will  here  be  maintained  is  exactly  that  which 
is  expressed  by  Hooker :  "  Christ  and  His  Holy 
Spirit  with  all  their  blessed  effects,  though  entering 
into  the  soul  of  man,  we  are  not  able  to  apprehend 
or  express  how,  do,  notwithstanding,  give  notice  of 
the  times  when  they  use  to  make  their  access, 
because  it  pleaseth  Almighty  God  to  communicate 
4* 


42  TIME   AND    MANNER 

by  sensible  means,  those  blessings  which  are  incom- 
prehensible."1 The  truth  of  this  statement  respect- 
ing the  Holy  Sacraments  must  be  learnt  from 
Scripture  ;  but  before  proceeding  to  exhibit  the  evi- 
dence in  respect  to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  it 
will  be  best  to  notice  those  antecedent  difficulties, 
by  which  men's  acceptance  of  the  statements  of 
Scripture  is  really  prevented.  These  difficulties 
appear  to  be  mainly  three :  First,  the  want  of  con- 
sonance between  the  outward  media,  and  those 
heavenly  and  spiritual  gifts  which  they  are  asserted 
to  convey.  Man's  imagination  revolts  at  the  idea 
that  divine  powers  are  so  bound  to  certain  apparently 
trivial,  external  ordinances,  that  we  can  have  no 
claim  to  the  first,  except  through  observance  of  the 
second.  The  notion  of  cause  and  effect,  indeed,  is 
a  primary  law  of  our  own  minds,  but  its  application 
is  so  completely  founded  upon  experience,  that  men 
feel  an  irresistible  disinclination  to  suppose  that 
physical  antecedents  can  be  followed  by  spiritual 
consequents. 

Secondly — To  many  persons  it  seems  a  sort  of 
sacrilege  that  any  physical  agencies  should  intrude 
between  God  and  the  souls  of  His  creatures.  Since 
external  ordinances  must  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
be  administered  by  human  instruments,  they  think 
that  to  speak  of  them  as  endowed  with  any  real 
efficacy,  is  to  subordinate  "the  Lord  and  Giver  of 
life"  to  the  control  of  men.  Hence  it  is  said,  that 
this  notion  "  banishes  the  Scriptural  truth,  that 
that  life-breathing  Agent  infuses  His  vital  in- 
fluences into  the  soul,  when,  where,  and   as   He 

1  Eccles.  Pol.  v.  57,  3. 


OF    REGENERATION.  43 

listeth  ;  and  it  limits  His  new  creating  power  to  the 
moment  of  application  of  the  Sacramental  symbol 
lawfully  administered."3  And  thus  "  the  Spirit 
would  of  necessity  effect  His  operation  in  every 
infant  at  the  moment  when  man  thinks  fit  to  direct 
He  shall  effect  it."3 

Thirdly — Men  object  that  Sacraments  do  not  pro- 
duce the  effect  which,  if  they  were  really  efficacious, 
could  not  fail  to  attend  thern.  Children  who  are 
baptized,  it  is  said,  are  not  different  from  others, 
and  little  result  seems  to  be  consequent  upon  the 
baptism  of  adults. 

Now  this  last,  which  is  the  most  formidable  ob- 
jection to  the  reality  of  sacramental  grace,  must  be 
met  by  considering  what  is  meant  by  the  work  of 
man's  Regeneration.  In  its  original  form  this  work 
assuredly  was  general,  complete,  and  immediate ; 
but  its  object  was  only  that  Head  of  our  race,  in 
whom  manhood  was  purified  perfectly  and  at  once, 
by  the  taking  it  into  God.  The  regeneration  of 
collective  manhood  was  wrought  in  the  instant  of 
.Our  Lord's  Incarnation.  And  therefore  of  the  two 
places  in  which  the  term  regeneration  occurs  in 
Scripture,  one  refers  to  the  consummation  of  that 
kingdom  of  Christ,  of  which  His  Incarnation  was  the 
commencement.  But  when  this  work  is  wrought 
in  individual  men,  what  is  effected  is  not  the  com- 
plete and  instant  change  of  their  whole  nature,  but 
only  the  infusion  of  that  Divine  seed  of  a  higher 
humanity,  by  which  their  spiritual  progress  is  com- 
menced.    Such  a  gift  does  not  exclude  the  action 

2  Gorham's  "  Examination  before  Admission  to  a  Benefice."— 
Introduction,  p.  xxvii. 
8  Id.  p.  109.     Answer,  58. 


44  TIME    AND    MANNER 

of  man's  own  responsibility.  It  is  but  to  place  men 
in  a  higher  state  of  trial,  by  the  infusion  of  a  prin- 
ciple above  nature.  The  new  seed  must  have  time 
to  overcome  the  old  principle  of  corruption  ;  its 
existence  must  be  recognized,  its  growth  encouraged. 
Those  who  deny  Regeneration  in  Baptism  are  ready 
in  common  to  admit  that  the  children  of  Christian 
parents  are  placed  by  birth  in  a  state  of  higher 
Christian  privilege  than  others.  Mr.  Goode,  who 
denies  that  Baptism  assures  us  of  the  salvation  of  all 
infants  ("  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin") 
supposes  that  respecting  the  children  of  really  devout 
Christians,  it  gives  us  this  assurance.  But  have  we 
any  proof  that  such  children  would  in  their  riper 
years  be  better  than  others,  if  no  pains  were  taken 
to  foster  the  blessing  intrusted  to  them  ?  Does  not 
experience  show  that  principles  lie  dormant  in  the 
mind,  which  it  requires  fitting  occasions  to  call 
forth  ?  .Does  not  this  happen  perpetually  in  respect 
to  the  natural  endowments,  the  capacity  for  art,  the 
faculties  of  judgment?  Do  not  these  often  appear, 
where  men  have  for  years  shown  no  signs  of  possess- 
ing powers,  which  are  yet  only  a  development  of  the 
inherent  principles  of  their  being  ?  And  why,  then, 
may  not  the  same  thing  be  expected  in  the  case  of 
that  higher  nature,  which  is  supernaturally  engrafted 
on  the  ancient  stock  of  their  kind? 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  on  this  subject  experi- 
ence will  warrant  no  positive  conclusions,  till  the 
Church's  discipline  is  more  consistent  and  her 
course  of  instruction  more  complete.  While  her 
spiritual  ordinances  are  shared  alike  by  the  pro- 
fane and  the  holy,  it  cannot  be  expected  that  the 
people  at  large  will  appreciate  the  sacredness  of 


OF   REGENERATION.  45 

that  deposit,  with  which  they  have  been  intrusted. 
Till  education  is  grounded  professedly  on  the 
maxim,  that  the  young  should  "stir  up  the  gift'* 
which  is  in  them,  how  can  we  be  surprised  if  we 
see  it  produce  little  general  result  ?  It  is  unrea- 
sonable in  those  who  deny  the  efficacy  of  Baptism, 
to  complain  of  that  unfruitfulness  which  results 
from  their  own  neglect.  What  effect  do  the  truths 
of  the  Gospel  produce  upon  those  who  disbelieve 
them  ?  And  how  then  can  men  expect  that  any 
general  effect  will  attend  baptismal  blessings,  until 
there  prevails  a  general  belief  in  their  reality  ? 

The  other  two  objections  rest  in  part  upon  the 
erroneous  notion,  that  matter  is  less  under  the 
control  of  Almighty  God  than  mind.  Now  this 
is  to  return  to  the  ancient  Gnostic  error  ;  to  forget 
that  evil  had  its  origin  in  the  region  of  spiritual, 
not  of  material  substances,  and  that  the  one  class 
is  just  as  much  God's  work  as  the  other.  To 
suppose  that  spiritual  agents  have  any  power  in- 
dependently of  the  will  of  Him  Who  employs 
them,  would  be  to  exempt  them  from  the  control 
of  Omnipotence  :  to  suppose  that  His  power  could 
not  be  exerted  through  material  influences,  would 
be  to  limit  Omnipotence  itself.  Why  may  not 
words  and  elements  be  made  the  supernatural 
medium  of  giving  effect  to  His  will,  seeing  that 
even  the  natural  efficacy  of  material  substances  is 
derived  altogether  from  His  power  in  whom  "we 
live,  and  move  and  have  our  being?" 

But  these  objections  have  their  ground  in  a 
still  more  fatal  error — a  forgetfulness  of  that  great 
law  of  Mediation,  whereby  these  two  modes  of 
existence  have  been  indissolubly  joined  together 


46  TIME   AND    MANNER 

For  when  the  Eternal  Son  took  manhood  into 
God,  He  introduced  a  new  mode  of  relation  be- 
tween the  one  and  the  'other.  Man's  original  con- 
nexion with  God  had  been  built,  no  doubt,  on  a 
consideration  of  the  Spiritual  nature  of  the  Ulti- 
mate Cause,  and  of  that  peculiar  relation,  which 
it  had  pleased  Him  to  establish  with  the  souls 
which  were  formed  after  his  likeness.  But  with 
the  incarnation  came  a  new  state  of  things ;  the 
law  of  grace  wTas  substituted  for  the  law  of  nature. 
Our  ancient  intercourse  with  God  has  been  given 
back,  only  through  that  new  founder  of  man's 
race,  through  whom  alone  we  can  approach  the 
Father.  And  "  this  conjunction,"  says  Usher,4 
"  is  immediately  made  with  his  human  nature." 
And  this  is  a  conjunction 'which  requires,  it  would 
seem,  some  specific  media;  that  so  the  one  may 
be  really,  and  not  only  in  name,  united  to  the 
other.  Had  it  pleased  God,  indeed,  He  might 
have  moulded  every  individual  by  a  separate  act 
of  his  forming  Hand.  But  it  was  His  will  that 
we  should  bear  some  common  relation  to  that 
first  father,  whose  type  re-appears  in  all  his  child- 
ren. And  when  Christ,  Our  Lord,  took  the  name 
of  the  Second  Adam,  He  implied  that  we  wTere 
to  partake  not  less  truly  of  that  higher  Humanity, 
which  was  re-created  in  Him.  So  that  in  main- 
taining the  efficacy  of  Sacraments,  we  are  not 
trusting  to  any  saving  virtue  which  is  inherent  in 
words  or  elements,  but  to  the  work  wrought  once 
for  all,  in  the  Garden,  and  on  the  Cross. 

To  object,  then,  to  the  system  of  sacraments, 

4  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  608. 


OF    REGENERATION.  47 

as  though  it  limited  the  spontaneous  action  of 
God  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  to  object  to  a  revealed 
law  of  the  Divine  Economy — namely,  that  it  is 
the  good  pleasure  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  to 
carry  into  effect,  and  not  to  supersede,  the  medi- 
ation of  Christ.  It  is  to  forget  that  "  the  streams 
of  grace  must  run  to  us,  through  the  golden  pipe 
of  our  Saviour's  Humanity."5  And  therefore  it 
is  to  go  back  from  the  law  of  grace,  to  the  law 
of  nature.  This  is  not  understood,  of  course,  by 
those  Christian  writers  who  make  the  objection. 
But  it  is  openly  avowed,  when  the  objection 
passes  into  the  hands  of  Socinians,  by  whom  only 
it  can  be  consistently  advanced.  For  it  rests  en- 
tirely upon  that  primary  law  of  our  being,  accord- 
ing to  which  "  the  Soul  is  the  specific  sense,  in 
which  we  come  into  contact  with  God."d  Such 
wTas  confessedly  the  law  of  man's  creation.  But 
to  suppose  that  the  Supreme  Being  must  needs 
act  at  present  upon  this  system,  is  to  judge  of 
Him  according  to  that  estimate  which  we  had  by 
nature,  and  not  by  that  which  has  been  revealed 
to  us  by  Christ.  So  that  to  make  this  principle  a 
ground  for  rejecting  that  new  channel  of  inter- 
course, which  has  been  provided  through  the 
taking  of  manhood  into  God,  would  be  to  rest 
our  hopes  upon  the  right  of  man's  original  inherit- 
ance, and  to  renounce  that  new  birthright  which 
has  been  bestowed  upon  humanity  through  medi- 
ation and  grace. 

Nowr,  if  men  would  discharge  from  their  minds 

s  Usher's  Works,  iv.  617. 

6  "  The  Soul,"  by  F.  W.  Newman,  p.  93. 


48  TIME   AND    MANNER 

those  previous  improbabilities  under  which  the 
sacramental  system  seems  to  labour,  and  would 
follow  the  guidance  of  faith  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  they  could  not  fail  to  be  struck  by  the 
manner  in  which  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  uni- 
formly associate  the  apparently  trivial  act  of  Bap- 
tism with  the  gift  of  spiritual  blessings.  What  can 
be  more  unaccountable,  supposing  that  Baptism 
had  been  only  an  outward  ceremony,  than  that  Our 
Lord  should  have  put  the  washing  of  water  promi- 
nently forward,  as  a  necessary  condition  of  His 
future  kingdom,  when  he  prophetically  unfolded 
its  mysteries  to  the  Jewish  B,abbi?  Why  should 
St.  John  have  been  guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost  about 
fifty  years  later,  to  give  this  statement  without  ex- 
planation to  the  Church  ?  Were  not  men  sure  to 
explain  it  by  that  Sacrament  of  Baptism  which 
had  already  been  assumed  to  convey  the  new  Birth 
of  man's  nature  ?  For  was  not  the  passage,  as 
Hooker  says,  universally  understood  in  this  sense, 
till  Zuinglius  stated,  fifteen  centuries  later,  that 
he  had  discovered  things  which  he  affirms  to  have 
been  hidden  from  all  preceding  times  ?  Again,  is 
it  not  a  most  striking  circumstance,  that  in  the 
only  place  in  which  the  regeneration  of  individuals 
is  spoken  of,  it  should  be  distinctly  asserted  that  it 
is  connected  with  the  washing  of  water  ?  "  He 
saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is  useless  to 
dwell  on  such  passages,  since  they  are  of  course 
familiar  to  those  who  take  a  different  view  of 
things.  Yet  it  is  impossible  not  to  press  upon 
their  attention,  that  no  doctrinal  statement  re- 
specting Baptism  occurs  in  Holy  Scripture,  which 


OF    REGENERATION.  49 

does  not  represent  it  as  the  medium  of  grace  ;  and, 
still  more,  that  it  is  repeatedly  stated  to  be  the 
means  of  union  with  that  Humanity  of  Christ, 
which  is  the  principle  of  vitality  to  the  new  nature. 
"  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  put  on  Christ,"7  says  Saint  Paul. 
Twice  does  he  speak  of  men  as  "  buried  with 
Him  in  baptism."8  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  His  death."9  And  Baptism  is  de 
clared  to  be  a  work,  in  which  God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  whom  all  Christ's  members  are  ce- 
mented into  one  Body  in  Him,  has  an  especial 
share.  "By  One  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into 
one  Body."10  When  St.  Paul,  therefore,  met  with 
disciples  who  professed  themselves  to  know  no- 
thing of  the  Spirit's  work,  his  first  question  was, 
"  Unto  what,  then,  were  ye  baptized?"11  If,  as 
has  been  sometimes  thought,  there  was  really  no 
great  difference  between  the  Baptism  of  repen- 
tance, and  that  which  was  ministered  by  Our 
Lord's  Apostles,  why  should  it  have  been  repeated 
in  the  case  of  these  disciples  ?  Further,  let  it  be 
observed  how  completely  the  appointment  of 
Christian  Baptism  is  made  to  depend  upon  the 
spiritual  completeness  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom. 
It  was  when  Our  Lord's  Humanity  had  received 
the  prerogative  by  gift,  which  belonged  to  His 
Godhead  by  nature,  that  He  sent  His  Apostles  to 
baptize  in  His  Name  :  "  All  power  is  given  unto 
Me  in  heaven  and  earth.     Go  ye,  therefore,  and 


v  Gal.  iii.  27.  8  Rom.  vi.  4;  Col.  ii.  12. 

9  Rom.  vi.  3.         10  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  »  Acts  xix.  3. 


50  TIME    AND   MANNER 

make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  And  in  like  manner  St.  Peter 
tells  us  that  "  Baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  (not 
the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God),  by  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  gone  into  hea- 
ven, and  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God."12 

Two  objections  will  probably  be  made  to  the 
statements  which  have  been  advanced.  Itwullbe 
said,  first,  that  no  one  denies  Baptism  to  be  a 
means  of  grace  ;  all  that  is  denied  is,  that  grace  is 
in  any  peculiar  manner  tied  to  it.  Prayer,  it  is 
said,  preaching,  advice,  are  all  means  of  grace ; 
and  sacraments  take  a  high  place  among  them,  as 
being  significent  actions,  addressing  themselves 
with  peculiar  force  to  the  minds  of  men.  And, 
secondly,  it  will  be  thought  that  to  lay  so  much 
stress  on  Baptism,  to  represent  it  as  in  any  wise 
identical  with  Regeneration,  is  to  derogate  from 
the  necessity  of  conversion,  and  the  prerogatives 
of  faith. 

I.  The  real  question  at  issue,  when  it  is  dis- 
puted whether  Baptism  is  in  any  peculiar  sense  a 
means  of  grace,  is  whether  it  is  the  appointed 
means  of  bringing  men  into  connexion  with  the 
Humanity  of  Christ.  For  if  it  be,  then  since  the 
gifts  of  grace  are  bestowed  in  God's  new  kingdom 
through  the  mediation  of  the  Incarnate  Son,  Bap- 
tism must  be,  as  Hooker  expresses  it,  "  a  step  to  our 
sanctification  here,  which  hath  not  any  before  it." 
Now,  the  onlv  scriptural  arguments  which  are  ad- 

12  1  Pet.  iii.  21-2. 


OF    REGENERATION.  51 

duced  against  this  position  are — first,  that  Scrip- 
ture implies  grace  to  be  a  preliminary  to  Baptism  ; 
and  again,  that  though  Baptism  is  repeatedly 
associated  with  the  New  Birth,  yet  that  the  New 
Birth  is  sometimes  spoken  of  independently  of  Bap- 
tism. Let  us  begin  with  this  last  assertion  :  "  Who- 
soever believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of 
God."  Here,  it  is  said,  a  new  test  of  spiritual  birth 
comes  in,  and,  therefore,  though  nothing  hinders 
that  the  new  birth  may  take  place  in  Baptism,  yet 
there  are  other  ways  which  are  just  as  fitting  for  its 
communication.  The  passage  which  has  been  cited, 
affords  no  real  countenance  to  such  an  opinion,  be- 
cause the  force  of  the  Greek  Perfect,  which  is  there 
employed,  is  to  imply  the  continuance  of  the  action 
to  which  it  makes  allusion.  Its  full  force  would 
rather  be,  "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  continues  in  that  birth,  wherein  he  has  been 
born  into  God.13  But  there  are,  doubtless,  various 
passages  of  Scripture  in  which  the  divine  birth  is 
alluded  to,  but  in  which  no  direct  reference  occurs 
to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism.  Such  is  the  state- 
ment, "  whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in 
God."14  Or  again,  "  as  many  as  received  Him,  to 
them  gave  He  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God, 
even  to  them  that  believe  on  His  Name."15  But 
though  these  passages  contain  no  direct  reference  to 
Baptism,  yet  neither  do  they  contain  the  slightest  in- 
timation that  the  peculiar  gift  which  is  associated  in 
Scripture  with  Baptism,  had  not  been  first  obtained. 
Regeneration,  as  was  shown  in  the  last  Chapter,  is  a 
re-creation  of  man's  nature  ;  which,  beginning  with 

13  1  John  v.  1.  M  Id.  iv.  15.  «  j0hn  i.  12. 


52  TIME    AND    MANNEH 

the  Son  of  Man,  in  whom  it  was  at  once  perfectly 
displayed,  is  afterwards  extended  in  their  manner, 
and  according  to  their  degree.,  to  his  earthly  bre- 
thren. When  Baptism  is  said  to  be  the  appointed 
means  by  which  this  supernatural  change  is  effected, 
it  is  because  it  is  the  revealed  instrument  where- 
by men  are  stated  to  be  born  into  Christ,  as  by  na- 
tural birth  they  are  numbered  among  the  offspring 
of  Adam.  .But  though  this  birth  into  Christ  takes 
place  in  that  act  by  which  He  first  gives  Himself  to 
man,  yet  its  result  must  be  shown  in  those  various 
stages  whereby  men  gradually  ascend  to  a  perfect 
conformity  with  the  image  of  their  Lord.  This  work 
is  not  perfected,  save  by  the  extinction  of  that  con- 
cupiscence by  which  it  is  obstructed.  Although, 
therefore,  Baptism  be  "  to  our  sanctification  here,  a 
step  which  hath  not  any  before  it,"16  yet  it  has  been 
said  that,  "  setting  aside  that  accident  of  its  being 
the  first,  the  reason  of  man  shall  never  be  able  to 
pronounce  wherein  it  differs  from  any  subsequent 
gift  conducing  to  the  furtherance  of  the  same 
state."17  And  hence  have  some  writers18  spoken  of 
Regeneration  as  a  work  which  is  only  commenced 
in  Baptism,  and  which  is  not  completed  till  the  con- 

16  Hooker,  v.  60,  3. 

17  Davison  on  Baptismal  Regeneration. —  Quarterly  Review, 
No.  15,  p.  504. 

18  Many  of  our  divines,  who  maintain  the  doctrine  of  Regene- 
ration in  Baptism,  in  its  most  unadulterated  sense,  often  use  the 
word  regenerate,  in  compliance  with  popular  usage,  to  signify  a 
man  living  habitually  under  the  influence  of  the  spirit  of  grace  ; 
unrcgenerate  to  signify  a  man  not  living  habitually  under  that 
influence.  Still  it  is  to  be  wished  that  they  had  avoided  this  am- 
biguity of  language,  and  had  kept  close  to  the  more  ancient  and 
more  correct  usage  of  the  word. — Bishop  Bcihcll  on  Rcgencra.' 
Hon,  cap.  i.  p.  9. 


OF   REGENERATION.  53 

cupiscence  of  our  old  nature  becomes  finally  extinct. 
Such  a  mode  of  speaking  is  not  accordant  with  the 
usage  of  Scripture  (for  "  the  only  place  in  Scrip- 
ture that  looks  at  all  favourable  to  the  notion  of  a 
second  regeneration,"19  Gal.  w.  19,  does  not  really 
bear  it  out ;)  yet  it  is  rather  an  inaccuracy  of  expres- 
sion than  an  erroneousness  of  thought,  so  long  as  it 
be  remembered,  that  the  process  whereby  men  are 
conformed  to  Christ's  image,  must  have  its  root 
in  that  appointed  means  whereby  He  joins  us  to 
Himself. 

And  this  view  of  Holy  Baptism,  as  the  com- 
mencement of  man's  spiritual  history,  may  show 
the  inadequacy  of  the  notion  which  is  sometimes 
adopted,  that  Baptism  is  the  extinction  of  guilt,  but 
not  the  re-creation  of  nature.  For  how  can  one  of 
those  ends  be  truly  accomplished,  save  by  the  same 
act  which  accomplishes  the  other?  That  which 
leads  God  to  look  on  our  race  with  displeasure,  is 
not  only  our  share  in  Adam's  guilt,  but  the  "  fault 
and  corruption"  which  wTe  inherit  from  him.  It  was 
not  sufficient,  therefore,  that  Christ  Our  Lord  should 
accumulate  such  an  amount  of  merit  by  His  death 
upon  the  cross,  as  outweighed  all  men's  offences ; 
it  was  needful  that  He  should  vouchsafe  such  ac- 
tual incorporation  into  Himself,  as  would  give  His 
members  a  real  participation  in  the  value  of  His  sa- 

15  Water  land,  vol.  vi.  p.  364. — "  Cum  ergo  sint  duae  nativita- 
tes — una  est  de  terra,  alia  de  coelo ;  una  est  de  carne,  alia  de 
spiritu;  una  est  de  mortalitate,  alia  de  seternitate;  una  est  de 
masculo  et  faemina,  alia  de  Deo  et  Ecclesia.  Sed  ipsa?  duse  sin- 
gulve  sunt;  nee  ilia  potest  repcti  nee  ilia — Jam  natus  sum  de 
Adam,  non  me  potest  iterum  generare  Adam  :  jam  natus  sum  de 
Christo,  non  me  potest  iterum  gemerare  Christus.  Quomodo 
uterus  non  potest  repeti,  sic  nee  Baptismus." — S.  Aug.  in  Joan. 
True.  xi.  quoted  by  Water/and,  Works,  vi.  p.  317. 

5* 


54  TIME    AND    MANSER 

crifice.  "  You  being  dead  in  your  sins  and  the 
uncircumcision  of  the  flesh,  hath  He  quickened 
together  with  Him,  having  forgiven  you  all  tres- 
passes."20  Restoration  to  God's  favour  is  the  natu- 
ral effect  of  that  spiritual  birth,  whereby  the  chil- 
dren of  Adam  are  transformed  into  the  members  of 
Christ. 

But  here  comes  in  the  other  and  more  formidable 
part  of  the  objection,  which  suggests  that  Scripture 
asserts,  or  at  least  implies,  that  the  gift  spoken  of  is 
dispensed  before  baptism,  just  as  much  as  in  it.  It 
follows,  which  seems  to  be  the  view  aimed  at  by 
those  who  derogate  from  the  importance,  and  yet 
continue  the  practice  of  Baptism,  that  it  is  only  a 
a  sign  of  profession  and  mark  of  difference,"  instead 
of  being  "  an  instrument,"  whereby  men  are  grafted 
into  Christ's  Body.  The  passage  on  which  this  is 
supposed  to  be  directly  founded,  is  that  wherein 
St.  Peter  asks,  "  can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?"  Yet  how  can  a 
miraculous  interposition  of  this  sort  supersede  God's 
revelation  respecting  His  ordinary  dealings  with 
mankind  ?  It  is  said,  however,  that  we  may  in- 
fer as  much  from  what  is  taught  us  respecting  the 
pre-requisites  for  Baptism.  How  can  faith  and 
repentance,  the  qualities  required  as  a  preparation 
for  Baptism,  be  obtained,  save  by  God's  grace  ? 
And  if  God's  grace  be  obtained,  is  not  the  end 
accomplished  which  is  sought  after?  That  Faith 
and  Repentance  being  good  gifts,  come  in  some 
way  from  the  Father  of  lights,  cannot  be  disputed. 
But  if  this  argument  be  pushed  to  its  result,  it 

20  Col.  ii.  13. 


OF    REGENERATION.  55 

would  identify  the  system  of  the  Gospel  with  the 
system  of  nature.  For  so  far  as  any  good  is  found 
in  the  state  of  nature  it  is  God's  gift ;  it  results 
from  His  influence  who  was  "the  li«dit  of  men." 
But  how  wide  was  the  difference  when  "  the  true 
light," — which  before  had  shone  "  as  a  light  that 
shineth  in  a  dark  place," — came  personally  into 
the  world.  The  preparatory  strivings  whereby 
He  predisposes  the  hearts  of  men,  are  surely  dif- 
ferent from  that  full  adoption  whereby  men  be- 
come "members  of  His  body,  of  His  ilesh,  and 
of  His  bones."  "  He  was  in  the  world,  and  the 
world  was  made  by  Him,  and  the  world  knew 
Him  not."  This  was  the  state  of  nature;  even 
in  those  who  were  conscious  of  the  previous  lead- 
ings of  Him,  who  never  finally  forsook  the  beings 
whom  He  had  created.  And  how  different  this 
from  the  full  blessing  promised  to  those  "which 
were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the 
flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."21  We 
may  conclude,  that  in  Holy  Writ  an  especial 
blessing  is  associated  with  Holy  Baptism  ;  that 
peculiar  blessing,  namely,  which  results  from  the 
engrafting  of  mankind  into  the  Humanity  of  the 
Son  of  God.  To  those  who  object  to  this  truth 
in  consequence  of  their  conviction,  that  before 
Baptism  grace  is  given,  it  is  enough  to  reply,  that 
the  possibility  of  gifts  before  Baptism  cannot  dero- 
gate from  the  reality  and  importance  of  that  espe- 
cial gift,  which  Baptism  is  appointed  to  convey. 
Their  private  expectation  of  a  blessing  which  is 

21  John  i.  13. 


56  TIME    AND    MANNER 

not  revealed,  is  no  ground  for  rejecting  one,  of 
which  God's  revelation  assures  them. 

II.  To  come,  now,  to  the  second  ground  of  ob 
jection,  the  opinion,  namely,  that  the  prerogative 
claimed  for  Baptism  detracts  from  the  importance 
attributed  in  Scripture  to  Conversion  and  Faith. 
This  is  the  main  reason  of  the  suspicion  with 
which  many  good  men  regard  what  is  called  a 
.high  view  of  sacramental  grace.  Say  what  you 
will  they  think  it  impossible  to  reconcile  such  a 
system  with  the  great  prominence  which  Scripture 
plainly  gives  to  the  need  of  an  individual  conver- 
sion of  heart;  and  to  the  efficacy  of  a  saving  faith 
in  Christ  Our  Lord.  Yet  the  answer  to  this  dif- 
ficulty lies  in  a  single  word.  The  absolute  neces- 
sity of  fitness  on  the  part  of  the  receiver,  does 
not  in  the  slightest  degree  invalidate  the  asser- 
tion,  that  on  the  part  of  the  Giver  there  must  be 
a  real  communication  of  heavenly  blessings. 
Conversion  and  Faith  are  essential  to  the  efficacy 
of  Baptism  on  the  part  of  man  ;  but  there  must  be 
an  actual  gift  of  grace  on  the  part  of  God.  This 
gift  has  been,  stated  to  be  that  re-creation  of  man's 
being,  whereby  in  place  of  the  corrupt  nature 
which  we  inherit  from  Adam,  we  participate  in 
the  hallowed  nature  of  Christ  Our  Lord.  But 
besides  those  common  qualities  which  were  re- 
formed in  Christ  Our  Lord,  each  man  is  possessed 
of  an  individual  principle  of  responsibility,  which 
has  its  spring  of  action  within  itself.  This  ulti- 
mate principle  of  responsibility — the  self-originat- 
ing principle  on  which  man's  accountableness 
depends — may  yield  to  the  good  influences  which 
act  upon  it,  or  it   may  refuse  to  yield  to  them. 


OF    REGENERATION.  57 

And  its  compliance  with  them  is  what  is  called 
conversion.  Conversion  is  the  act  by  which  the 
accountable  principle  in  man  obeys  the  suasion  of 
those  motives,  which  incline  it  towards  its  Maker's 
service.  That  from  his  influence  must  come  what- 
ever of  goodness  there  is  in  its  choice,  does  not  do 
away  with  the  fact  that  in  itself  reststhe  power  either 
of  assent  or  of  resistance.  And  if  it  finally  rejects 
God's  grace,  His  blessed  influences  are  unprofit* 
able.  So  that  in  an  adult,  conversion  is  essential 
to  the  efficacy,  or  perhaps  it  might  almost  be  said  to 
the  completeness  of  Baptism.  Hence  St.  Cyprian 
supposed  that  no  real  baptism  could  exist  among 
schismatics,  and  that  upon  their  conversion  to  the 
faith,  its  outward  form  ought  to  be  repeated.  But 
the  Church  finally  ruled  the  matter,  as  it  is  ex- 
pressed by  St.  Augustin,23  that  Baptism  is  valid 
where  those  things  which  are  required  on  the  part 
of  God,  are  truly  administered,  but  that  its  bene- 
fit does  not  come  out  till  fitness  on  the  part  of  the 
receiver  co-operates  with  the  validity  of  the  rite. 
And  this  rule  he  transferred  from  the  case  of  those 
who  were  baptized  in  schism,  to  that  of  unworthy 
receivers  in  the  Church  of  God. 

It  may  be  asked,  however,  whether  conversion 
is  to  be  required  of  infants  ?  For  if  conversion  is 
an  essential  pre-requisite  to  baptism,  it  is  plain 
that  infants  can  be  no  fit.  candidates  for  that  holy 
rite  ;  yet  so  soon  as  their  principle  of  responsi- 
bility gains  strength,  it  is  plainly  bound  to  yield 
to  the  suasion  of  those  motives  which  incline  it 
towards  holiness.     And  though  the  name  of  con- 

22  De  Bapt.  contra  Donat.  i.  18. 


58  TIME    AND    MANNER 

version  is  more  exactly  applicable  when  persons 
have  gone  away  from  God's  commands,  and 
afterwards  return  to  them,  yet  it  may  in  some  sort 
be  applied  even  to  those,  who  yield  from  the  first 
to  the  suasions  of  that  better  nature  which  is  given 
them.  And  in  this  manner  does  St.  Augustin23 
observe  that  conversion  may  be  said  to  follow  in 
infants,  while  in  adults  it  must  accompany  re- 
generation. 

The  absolute  necessity  of  conversion,  therefore, 
in  no  wise  interferes  with  the  reality  of  that  gift 
of  regeneration,  which  is  conferred  in  Baptism. 
All  that  is  necessary  is  to  discriminate  between 
that  gift  of  a  renewed  nature,  which  God  bestows 
in  Christ  upon  those  who  are  engrafted  into  His 
Son,  and  that  principle  of  individual  responsibility 
which  must  yield  to  the  Divine  influence.  And 
this  is  still  more  manifest  in  the  case  of  faith. 
For  what  is  religious  faith  but  assent  to  the  decla- 
rations  of  God,  and  appreciation  of  His  nature  ? 
And  what  is  Christian  faith  but  the  application  of 
the  same  principle  to  that  Incarnate  Mediator, 
through  whom  alone  fallen  man  can  approach  the 
Father  ?  It  is  a  belief,  not  in  Christianity,  but  in 
Christ;  it  is  not  mere  admiration  of  the  excel- 
lence of  the  Christian  system,  but  the  casting  our- 
selves upon  that  Personal  restorer,  through  whom 
Divine  gifts  flow  forth  into  humanity.  Now  why 
should  the  reality  of  the  gift  bestowed,  diminish 
our  estimate  of  the  necessity  of  those  qualifications 

23  "  In  baptizatis  infantibus  pnrcedit  regencrationis  sacramen- 
tum,  et  si  Christianam  tenuerint  pietatera,  sequitur  in  corde 
conversio,  cujus  mystorium  prcccessit  in  corporc." — S.  Aug.  de 
Bap.  v.  24.     Quoted  by  Waterland.  vol.  vi.  p.  358. 


OF    REGENERATION. 

through  which  it  is  accepted  ?  The  sacramental 
system  is  that  scheme,  whereby  the  heavenly  bless- 
ings of  the  Second  Adam  truly  enter  the  family  of 
the  first.  Its  reality,  therefore,  is  not  only  com- 
patible with  a  true  belief,  but  essential  to  it.  For 
faith  cannot  make  its  own  objects;  they  must 
exist  beforehand  in  order  to  be  believed.  Upon 
this  subject  we  may  cite  the  testimony  of  those 
by  whom  the  importance  of  faith  has  not  been 
supposed  to  be  underrated.  "Faith,"  says  Lu- 
ther,24 "  implies  in  its  very  nature  the  existence 
of  something  upon  which  to  believe."  The  reality 
of  Baptism  therefore  does  not  derogate  from  its 
importance,  but  only  supplies  an  occasion  for  the 
exercise  of  its  powers.  This  connection  between 
a  true  faith  and  a  real  Baptism  is  set  forth  in  the 
Catechism,  where  one  qualification  of  those  wmo 
receive  it  is  stated  to  be  "Faith,  whereby  they 
steadfastly  believe  the  promises  of  God  made  to 
them  in  that  Sacrament." 

But  again,  wTe  must  pass  from  the  case  of  adults 
to  that  of  infants.  Now  if  faith,  it  is  said,  is  essen- 
tial to  participation  in  the  blessings  of  Baptism, 
how  can  infants  receive  them?  And  no  doubt 
there  cannot  be  the  completeness  both  on  the  side 
of  the  Giver  and  on  the  side  of  the  receiver, 
which  is  to  be  found  in  adult  baptism.  But  is  no 
benefit  derived  ?  For  if  a  condition  be  absolutely 
wanting,  without  which  no  benefit  can  attend  the 
ordinance,  is  it  not,  as  in  the  case  of  impenitent 
adults,  a  sort  of  mockery?     It  is  not  so  consi- 

24  Fallow's  "Baptismal  Service  Illustrated."  Pref.  p.  x.  A 
very  useful  collection  of  authorities. 


60        TIME    AND    MANNER    OF    REGENERATION. 

dered,  however,  even  by  those  who  have  most 
insisted  on  the  necessity  of  faith.  "When  the 
words  and  the  element  are  combined,"  says  Lu- 
ther, "it  must  be  supposed  to  be  a  valid  Baptism, 
even  though  there  be  no  faith.  For  my  faith 
does  not  make  Baptism,  but  realizes  and  lays 
hold  of  it."25  And  to  reconcile  this  truth  with 
his  own  general  statement  of  the  necessity  of  faith, 
he  suggests  that  the  seed  of  faith,  its  initial  prin- 
ciple, is  bestowed  by  God  on  infants  in  the  act  of 
Baptism,  so  that  they  may  in  some  sense  be  said 
already  to  possess  those  things,  which  advancing 
years  should  bring  to  maturity.  Such  new  mo- 
tives and  new  inclinations  to  God,  infused  in  holy 
Baptism,  are  stated  by  Melancthon26  to  be  in  the 
place  of  that  full  measure  of  faith  and  penitence, 
which  is  required  of  adult  candidates.  Now  how 
is  it  to  be  decided  whether  such  a  gift  is  truly  be- 
stowed upon  infants  in  their  Baptism  ?  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  their  powers  of  recipiency  are  yet 
imperfect;  it  is  asked  whether  those  blessings, 
which  are  bestowed  by  the  Giver  are  truly  theirs. 
The  question  is  surely  to  be  decided  by  the  fact, 
whether  infants  are  meet  candidates  for  Baptism. 
For  if  it  does  not  please  God  to  bestow  those  gifts 
of  which  their  nature  is  susceptible,  because  they 
are  prevented  by  the  deficiency  of  their  being, 
from  exercising  such  graces  as  belong  to  riper 
years,  why  should  they  be  baptized  at  all  ?  The 
objection,  therefore,  is  really  directed  against  In- 
fant Baptism  itself.  That  some  changes  might 
befall  them  even  in  their  present  state — that  a  dif- 

25  Luther's  "  Catechismus  Major."  2G  Fallow,  Prcf.  p.  xxiii. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  61 

ference  obtains  between  " unclean"  and  "holy" 
children — that  it  is  possible  for  them  to  participate 
in  that  renewal  which  Christ  wrought  in  all  the 
powers  of  man's  nature,  has  already  been  shown. 
And  if  this  blessing  is  not  conferred  upon  them, 
why  are  they  baptized  at  all  ?  Surely  it  were  bet- 
ter to  wait  till  their  conversion  could  be  com- 
plete, and  their  faith  mature.  Since  infants,  then, 
are  admitted  to  be  proper  candidates  for  Baptism, 
their  involuntary  weakness  cannot  destroy  the 
efficacy  of  God's  grace.  His  treasure-house  must 
have  its  blessings  for  the  young,  though  appro- 
priate gifts  are  reserved  for  his  elder  servants. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  EFFICACY  OF  HOLY  BAPTISM  ACCORDING  TO  THE 
AUTHORIZED  FORMULARIES  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF 
ENGLAND. 

The  meaning  of  Regeneration  has  now  been  con- 
sidered, and  the  statements  of  Holy  Writ  respecting 
the  time  and  manner  in  which  it  is  communicated. 
The  Scriptures,  it  has  been  seen,  are  distinct  and 
unequivocal  in  declaring  that  this  gift  is  bestowed 
in  Holy  Baptism.  Is  the  same  language  taught  by 
the  English  Church  ? 

Now,  of  the  two  views  on  this  subject — the  one 
exalting,  the  other  depreciating  baptismal  grace ; 
those  who  have  advocated  the  latter  have  been 
accustomed  to  say  that  the  Articles  do  not  compel 
them  to  mean  more  than  they  are  able  to  accept 


62 


Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  take  a  higher  view 
of  baptismal  grace,  while  it  is  plain  that  their 
system  is  not  excluded  by  the  Articles,  have  been 
accustomed  to  refer  to  the  Service-Book,  as  a  proof 
that  their  interpretation  of  the  Articles  is  the  only 
one  which  was  designed  to  be  admitted.  For  it  is 
the  only  one  by  which  the  different  Formularies  of 
the  Church  can  be  made  to  cohere.  But  however 
this  may  be,  the  Service-Book  is,  in  itself,  a  sufficient 
guarantee  of  the  Church's  intentions.  It  is  so  to 
the  Clergy,  for  all  those  who  are  beneficed  have 
solemnly  declared  their  assent  and  consent  to  all  its 
words.  It  is  so  to  the  laity,  for  its  translation  into 
English  has  made  it  a  means  of  general  instruction  ; 
and  the  use  of  the  baptismal  Service  "  when  the 
most  number  of  people  come  together,"  implies  a 
plain  desire  to  render  men  familiar  with  its  state- 
ments. 

And  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  in  her  assertions 
respecting  man's  regeneration  and  renewal  in  Christ, 
the  Church  of  England  is  merely  excluding  certain 
erroneous  principles,  without  enforcing  any  definite 
system  of  her  own.  For  she  is  not  content  merely, 
as  in  the  case  of  Purgatory,  to  object  to  certain 
opinions  entertained  by  others :  she  dwells  upon 
the  subject  in  the  Catechism,  which  she  requires 
every  child  to  learn  before  Confirmation,  and  which 
by  the  fifty-ninth  Canon,  every  Clergyman  is 
required  to  teach  diligently,  under  pain  of  suspen- 
sion. Even  the  laity,  therefore,  may  be  expected 
to  pay  some  attention  to  a  rule,  which  the  collective 
wisdom  of  the  Church  takes  such  pains  to  press 
upon  them.  The  withdrawal  of  those  penal  statutes, 
which  naturally  arrayed  the  minds  of  independent 


OF   HOLY   BAPTISM.  63 

men  against  Church-authority,  places  it  upon  a 
footing  more  likely  to  conciliate  regard.  For  if  any 
accordance  is  to  be  expected  in  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  any  agreement  among  men,  it  must 
plainly  be  built  upon  deference  to  some  common 
authority.  Now  what  can  be  so  well  entitled  to 
attention,  as  that  exposition  of  doctrine,  which  has 
professedly  descended  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles, 
and  which  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  affection  and 
belief  of  the  wisest  and  best  men  in  the  intervening 
period  ?  Is  not  this  better  than  the  dictum  of  any 
individual,  under  whose  influence  circumstances 
place  us  ?  And  this  feeling  ought  to  be  greatly 
strengthened  by  the  spectacle  of  that  blank  infi- 
delity, which  has  spread  its  noxious  influence  over 
those  countries  where  the  opposite  system  prevails. 
And  as  this  feeling  may  be  looked  for  among  the 
laity,  so  still  more  among  the  Clergy ;  who  cannot 
wTith  a  safe  conscience  teach  what  they  disbelieve, 
nor  safely  leave  untaught  what  they  have  promised 
to  inculcate.  It  could  be  no  relief  to  them  if  the 
Ecclesiastical  Courts,  as,  some  have  desired,  were 
inhibited  from  taking  account  of  the  statements  of 
the  Prayer-Book.  Were  it  enjoined  by  Act  of 
Parliament  that  no  minister  of  the  Church  should  be 
liable  to  punishment  for  propounding  doctrines  not 
condemned  by  the  Articles,  how  would  such  a 
charge  relieve  the  consciences  of  those,  to  whom 
the  words  of  the  Prayer-Book  seem  objectionable  ? 
Could  they,  as  honest  men,  continue  to  use  expres- 
sions which  they  disbelieved  ?  Could  they  promise 
to  teach  a  system  which  they  intended  to  contra- 
dict ?  To  what  purpose  should  they  be  excused 
from  punishment  for  rejecting  statements,  to  which 


64 

in  the  most  solemn  moments  of  their  lives,  they 
were  required  to  consent  ?  Or  how  would  they  be 
advantaged  by  exemption  from  the  control  of  an 
earthly  court,  so  long  as  they  were  amenable  to  the 
more  searching  tribunal  of  conscience  ? 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  our  Church  designs  to  teach 
something  in  her  Offices  respecting  Regeneration  ; 
and  that  so  long  as  her  offices  continue  unchanged, 
both  Clergy  and  Laity  may  be  expected  to  believe 
them.  And  what  is  it  which  she  teaches  ?  Now 
we  have  the  confession  of  a  determined  opponent 
that  they  appear  to  teach  Baptismal  Regeneration. 
By  all  indifferent  persons — by  all,  that  is,  who  are 
not  members  of  the  English  Church,  and  therefore 
can  look  at  her  from  without  as  uninterested  specta- 
tors— it  has  always  been  assumed  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  Church  of  England  teaches  this 
doctrine  in  a  uniform,  unequivocal,  categorical 
manner ;  but  even  Mr.  Goode  admits,  respecting  the 
Church's  Service,  that  "  the  expressions  evidently 
favour  the  notion  of  their  referring  to  the  full  bap- 
tismal blessing."  Let  us  first  look  at  the  thing, 
then,  in  this  light,  and  see  how  far  its  words  tally 
with  the  view,  which  even  in  the  judgment  of 
opponents  is  their  apparent  signification.  That 
view  has  been  stated  in  the  preceding  Chapters. 
After  man  had  lost  that  perfection  in  which  he  was 
originally  created,  his  nature  received  a  new  begin- 
ning in  that  Second  Head,  in  whom  all  its  princi- 
ples were  reconstructed.  The  Regeneration  of 
humanity,  which  began  when  the  Eternal  Word 
took  our  nature  in  the  Virgin's  womb,  was  subse- 
quently extended,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  to  all  who  by  grace  were  made  children  of 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  65 

the  New  Adam.  Thus  was  the  whole  constitution 
of  our  being  to  be  renewed.  Now,  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  an  object  which  was  alien  in  this  way 
from  the  course  of  nature,  it  was  requisite  that  some 
means,  which  nature  did  not  supply,  should  be 
adopted.  For  this  reason  was  the  system  of  Sacra- 
ments ordained,  as  being  the  means,  whereby  the 
Humanity  of  the  Word  should  extend  itself  to 
others ;  so  that  men  might  hereby  have  the  same 
relation  to  the  Second  Adam,  which  the  course  of 
nature  gave  them  to  the  first.  On  this  account  is 
the  gift  of  Regeneration  first  bestowed  in  Holy  Bap- 
tism. For  then  do  we  become  "  members  of" 
Christ's  "  Body,  of  His  flesh,  and  of  His  bones." 

Now,  if  it  be  asked  in  what  manner  this  gift 
affects  us,  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  has  been 
shown  to  imply  two  parties,  a  Giver  and  a  re- 
ceiver. And  an  inefficacy,  which  cannot  arise 
from  any  deficiency  in  the  perfect  Giver,  may  yet 
be  brought  about  through  the  defects  of  the  im- 
perfect receiver.  But  the  defect  by  which  the  pur- 
pose of  infinite  Goodness  may  thus  be  defeated, 
cannot  be  only  the  general  fault  and  defect  of  our 
nature,  which  we  each  of  us  inherit  from  Adam, 
independently  and  anterior  to  the  exercise  of  our 
individual  will.  For  this  defect  and  corruption  of 
our  nature  is  the  very  thing  which  our  new  na- 
ture is  designed  to  correct ;  and  the  mere  exis- 
tence, therefore,  of  the  defect,  cannot  be  supposed 
to  neutralize  at  once  the  remedy,  which  is  ade- 
quate to  correct  it.  So  that  the  evil  by  which  the 
Divine  gift  is  neutralized,  must  be  referred  to  each 
man's  individual  wilfulness  ;  so  that  personal  ac- 
tion of  his  own  voluntary  powers,  which  is  inse- 


66 


parable  from  his  responsibility.  Where  this  indi- 
vidual wilfulness  prevails,  it  must  be  met  by 
some  especial  action  of  God's  preventing  grace, 
overcoming  that  impediment,  which  would  other- 
wise destroy  the  efficacy  of  His  ordinances.  Such 
preventing  grace  has  a  peculiar  connection  of 
course  with  the  sacramental  ordinance,  for  which 
it  prepares  man  :  it  is  a  gift  anticipatory  to  Bap- 
tism, and  relevant  to  it  ;  whereby  the  individual 
powers  of  the  adult  catechumen  may  be  brought 
into  that  state  of  Faith  and  Repentance,  which 
may  render  him  a  meet  recipient  for  the  gift  of 
Baptism.  And  since  this  action  of  prevenient 
grace  does  not  supersede  human  responsibility,  it 
can  only  persuade,  it  cannot  coerce.  So  that 
whether  he  shall  profit  by  the  gift  of  Baptism 
must  still  depend,  in  adult  years,  upon  the  state 
of  the  responsible  receiver.  For  his  individual  ac- 
tion may  oppose  itself  to  the  efficacy  of  the  Bap- 
tismal blessing.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  when  the 
individual  responsibility  is  not  developed  — when  it 
has  no  power  to  act  one  way  or  another — when 
nothing  has  yet  come  into  operation  but  that  ge- 
neral nature,  which  we  receive  in  a  state  of  pol- 
lution, and  which  needs  to  be  transformed  into  a 
state  of  grace — there  exists  no  power  to  oppose 
the  Divine  blessing,  or  to  interfere  between  God's 
goodness  and  man's  wants.  For  what  should  in- 
terfere between  them  ?  Not  man's  general  corrup- 
tion ;  for  this  is  the  very  evil  which  God's  mercy 
undertakes  to  abate.  Not  man's  individual  action ; 
for  this  has  not  yet  received  such  development  as 
to  be  the  parent  of  any  result. 

Now,  in  exact  accordance  with  this  state  of 


OF  HOLY    BAPTISM.  '  67 

things,  we  find  two  forms  provided,  under  which 
Baptism  is  to  be  administered.  The  first  and  in  or- 
dinary cases  the  common  mode,  is  that  which  is 
to  be  employed  before  the  will  and  understanding 
have  woke  up  to  individual  action.  In  this  case, 
which  is  that  of  infants,  there  is  no  room  for  any 
thing  but  the  renewal  of  the  general  nature.  The 
Church,  therefore,  describes  those  qualifications 
which  fit  infants  for  Baptism.  The  first  is  that  de- 
generacy of  nature  which  renders  this  medium 
needful  for  their  recovery  :  "Inasmuch  as  all  men 
are  conceived  and  born  in  sin."  The  second  is 
that  freedom  from  actual  sin,  which  renders  it  im- 
possible that  the  purpose  of  God's  gifts  should  be 
defeated  by  their  individual  disbelief  and  wilful- 
ness. "  Ye  hear  in  this  Gospel  the  words  of  Our 
Saviour  Christ  that  He  commanded  the  children 
to  be  brought  unto  Him  ;  how  He  blamed  those 
that  would  have  kept  them  from  Him  ;  how  He 
exhorteth  all  men  to  follow  their  innocency."1  It 
is  only  by  reference  to  this  necessary  exemption 
from  actual  sin,  that  we  can  understand  how  the 
term  "innocents"  can  be  bestowed  upon  those, 
who  are  tainted  by  hereditary  curruption.  Such, 
however,  are  they  called;  and  therefore  it  is  that 
whatever  pertains  to  them  is  so  capable  of  re- 
newal, through  the  reforming  energy  of  the  Se- 
cond Adam,  because    that    individual   responsi- 

1  In  "  the  case  of  infants,  their  innocence  and  incapacity  are 
to  them  instead  of  repentance,  which  they  do  not  need,  and  of 
actual  faith,  which  they  cannot  have." — "Waterland,  vol.  vi. 
p.  356. 

So  St.  Austin  calls  children,  "  innocentes  imagines  Dei." — 
In  Juliany/hi,  vi.  4. 


63 


bility,  which  might  oppose  itself  to  such  a  gift, 
has  not  yet  awoke  to  assert  its  powers.  But  be- 
cause it  is  essential,  that  when  this  responsibility 
awakens,  it  should  be  moulded  according  to  the 
laws  of  that  new  nature,  which  unconscious  child- 
hood had  previously  received,  therefore  does  the 
Church  take  legal  security  of  the  infant's  guar- 
dians, that  its  awaking  consciousness  may  be  in- 
structed in  the  nature  of  that  gift,  of  which  it  has 
already  been  put  into  possession. 

Now,  to  this  Service  for  the  Baptism  of  Infants, 
was  added,  in  a  later  time,  a  service  for  the  Bap- 
tism of  Adults.  Here  the  same  general  framework 
was  retained  ;  but  a  marked  diversity  in  the  ex- 
pressions was  suggested  by  the  difference  of  the 
case.  Inasmuch  as  the  individual  powers  of  the 
receiver  had  now  awoke  into  consciousness,  the 
blessing  of  Baptism  is  stated  to  be  contingent  on 
their  due  exertion.  "  Doubt  ye  not,  therefore,  but 
earnestly  believe  that  He  will  favourably  receive 
these  present  persons,  truly  repenting,  and  coming 
unto  Him  by  faith."  Respecting  this  condition 
nothing  had  been  said  in  the  Baptism  of  Infants: 
while  on  the  other  hand,  all  mention  of  "inno- 
cency"  in  respect  of  actual  transgression  is  omit- 
ted ;  and  it  is  stated  not  only  that  men  are  "born 
in  sin,"  but  likewise  that  "  thev  that  are  in  the 
flesh  cannot  please  God,  but  live  in  sin,  commit- 
ting many  actual  transgresssions."  And  then 
follow  those  direct  and  explicit  declarations  of 
the  regeneration  of  the  baptized  parties,  which 
"  evidently  favour"  the  idea,  as  Mr.  Goode  al- 
lows, that  "  the  full  baptismal  blessing"  is  con- 
ferred.     For   respecting   every   baptized    infant 


OF   HOLY    BAPTISM.  69 

unconditionally,  and  respecting  every  adult  with 
the  condition  which  has  been  already  mentioned, 
the  minister  is  required  to  affirm  that  "  this  child" 
or  "  person  is  regenerate."  Now  that  which  is  true 
of  every  child  must  be  true  of  all ;  for  what  can 
be  more  general  than  an  assertion  to  which  there 
is  no  exception  ? 

Thus  do  both  these  services  accord  exactly 
with  the  notion,  that  a  real  gift  is  bestowed  in  Bap- 
tism. This  idea  is  not  only  favoured  by  the  ex- 
pressions used,  but  it  harmonizes  with  them 
exactly  in  every  particular ;  and  the  very  condi- 
tion which  it  was  essential  to  introduce  in  the  one 
case,  shows  the  unqualified  truth  of  that  which 
had  been  asserted  in  the  other.  And  the  same 
idea  may  be  traced  in  all  the  Church's  Services. 
The  Catechism  teaches  all  children  to  affirm,  that 
in  Baptism,  they  are  elected  to  be  members  of 
Christ.  In  Confirmation  the  Bishop  reminds  them 
that  God  has  "  vouchsafed  to  regenerate"  them 
"by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  sickness 
the  Priest  recalls  to  their  thought  "  the  profession 
made  unto  God  in"  their  "Baptism."  Those 
who  live  in  open  sin  the  Church  requires  her  chief 
pastors  to  separate  from  her  communion  by  pub- 
lic sentence,  but  when  the  last  sad  offices  are  to 
be  discharged,  she  bids  her  ministers  to  speak  of 
all  who  have  been  baptized,  and  are  not  excom- 
municated, as  members  of  her  brotherhood.  Thus 
are  the  positive  statements  which  she  makes  re- 
specting infants,  confirmed  by  her  mode  of  deal- 
ing with  her  adult  children. 

It  might  seem  that  these  expressions  of  the 
Church  left  no  room  to  doubt  what  was  her  inten- 


70  the  church's  estimate 

tion.  For  here  is  an  affirmation  made  respecting 
every  infant,  and  the  gift  bestowed  in  Baptism  is 
referred  to  as  important  in  after-life.  All  this,  how- 
ever, is  held  by  some  persons  to  be  erroneous, 
because,  as  Mr.  Goode  expresses  the  matter,  it 
involves  a  u  complete  pretention  of  the  necessity 
of  qualifiations  in  infants."  His  argument  is  as 
follows  :  "  In  the  case  of  adults  we  must  suppose 
that  these  statements  were  intended  only  to  apply 
to  those  adults  who  have  faith  and  repentance. 
Why,  then,  I  ask,  are  we  not  to  suppose  a  similar 
and  analogous  limitation  implied  in  the  case  of 
infants  ?"  Now  it  may  readily  be  conceded  that 
these,  like  all  other  general  statements,  admit  ot 
limiting  conditions,  but  then  the  statements  them- 
selves must  be  shown  to  be  of  a  kind  which  not 
only  admit,  but  require  limitation.  The  strongest 
arguments  which  have  been  adduced  against  the 
sacramental  system  (the  little  effect  which  follows 
Baptism,  to  which  we  adverted  in  the  last  Chapter  ; 
or  the  Calvinistic  Doctrine  of  Decrees,  which  will 
be  considered  in  conclusion)  would  here  be  out 
of  place  ;  for  the  present  question  is,  not  whether 
Baptismal  Regeneration  is  true,  but  whether  it  is 
taught  in  the  Prayer-Book.  Such  general  objec- 
tions to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  might  be  a  rea- 
son for  altering  the  Prayer-Book's  words,  but  they 
cannot  alter  its  interpretation.  What  Mr.  Goode 
must  do,  is  to  show  that  the  statements  themselves 
are  of  such  a  kind,  that  their  very  expressions 
imply  the  limitation  for  which  he  is  contending. 
For  example,  when  the  Church  is  speaking  of  the 
state  of  man  in  the  coming  world,  here  the  very 
language  suggests  that  measure  of   uncertainty, 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  71 

which  is  bound  up  with  our  notion  of  futurition. 
So  that  it  may  be  observed  in  passing,  that  general 
statements  respecting  anything  past  or  present,  are 
different  in  kind  from  general  statements  respect- 
ing what  may  be  hereafter.  Thus,  when  we  say 
"  to-morrow  will  be  a  fine  day,"  our  acknowledged 
ignorance  of  the  future  leads  us  to  receive  the 
statement  in  a  very  different  sense  from  that  which 
we  would  assign  to  the  assertion,  "  yesterday  was 
a  fine  day."  If  a  man,  possessing  the  ordinary 
means  of  knowledge,  deceived  us  in  the  one  case, 
we  should  say  he  wanted  skill ;  if  he  deceived  us 
in  the  other,  we  should  say  he  wanted  veracity. 
Now  some  such  qualification,  drawn  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  must  be  found  in  the  present 
instance.  For  the  ordinary  laws  of  language  would 
not  allow  us  to  affirm  any  thing  as  a  general  truth, 
which  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  to  be  so.  The 
condition,  though  not  positively  expressed,  must 
in  some  manner  be  applied.  To  assert  those 
things  respecting  every  man  unconditionally, 
which  they  believe  not  to  be  unconditionally  true, 
would  be  to  commit  a  breach  of  veracity  in 
Church,  which  men  would  not  hazard  in  the 
market-place. 

Mr.  Goode  so  far  feels  the  force  of  this  reason- 
ing, that  he  is  not  contented  to  say,  as  some  have 
done,  "  we  make  this  assertion  of  every  body,  be- 
cause, though  usually  false,  it  sometimes  turns  out 
to  be  true  :"  he  does  not  mean  that  occasional 
truth  is  an  excuse  for  ordinary  falsehood  ;  but  he 
maintains  that  he  is  able  to  bring  forward  certain 
qualifying  conditions,  by  which  the  general  state- 
ments of  the  Prayer-Book  are  actually  limited. 


72 

And,  by  way  of  stating  the  views  of  various  par- 
ties, he  brings  forward  three  qualifications,  the 
two  first  of  which  he  himself  apparently  favours, 
the  third  he  attributes  exclusively  to  others, 
These  qualifications  are,  first,  "  That  the  effica- 
ciousness of  baptism  in  infants  depends  upon  pre- 
vious election  by  God  to  salvation."  Secondly, 
M  The  efficaciousness  of  Baptism  depends  upon 
the  prevision  by  God,  of  further  faith  and  repen- 
tance in  the  child  at  a  subsequent  period  of  life." 
Thirdly,  "  As  faith  and  repentance  are  required  in 
the  adult,  so  they  are  requisite,  in  proportion,  to 
the  infant,  for  the  reception  in  Baptism  of  the  full 
blessing  of  that  ordinance." 

Now,  the  first  consideration  which  these  quali- 
fications suggest,  is,  that  they  involve  this  im- 
portant truth,  that  the  benefit  of  baptism  is  not 
merely  a  change  in  men's  ecclesiastical  position, 
but  a  real  alteration  in  their  nature.  Whether  the 
Church  designs  to>  affirm  that  all  baptized  infants 
experience  this  change,  is  a  further  question  ;  but 
Mr.  Goode  may  be  expected  to  accord  with  that 
doctrine,  which  her  words  so  obviously  imply,  that 
those  who  partake  the  inward  gift  of  Baptism  are 
participants  of  a  real  and  spiritual  blessing.3   And 

2  "  For  ourselves,  as  we  have  often  stated,  we  never  could 
clearly  see  the  scriptural  warrant  for  this  distinction  between 

spiritual  and  what  is  called  baptismal  regeneration 

We  cannot  but  think  that  the  phrase,  "baptismal  regeneration," 
was  invented  to  reconcile  the  strong  terms  in  which  the  effects 
of  baptism  are  spoken  of  in  Christian  antiquity,  and  by  our 
own  Church,  with  the  undeniable  fact  that  all  baptized  persons 
do  not  give  evidence  of  having  been  spiritually  born  again. 
We  concur  with  Dr.  Pusey,  and  other  writers  of  the  same 
school,  that  this  notion  does  not  satisfy  the  strong  language  of 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  73 

this  accordingly  he  fully  admits  to  be  the  meaning 
of  our  service.  "  It  appears  to  me,"  he  says, 
"  that  regeneration  in  the  full  scriptural  sense  of 
the  word,  as  implying  incorporation  into  the  true 
Church  and  Body  of  Christ,  is  prayed  for,  and 
that  the  thanksgiving  is  for  the  presumed  be- 
stowal of  the  blessing  asked."  And  in  whatever 
case  the  words  of  the  Church  are  truly  applica- 
ble, it  seems  inconceivable  that  less  can  be  im- 
plied in  them. 

But  when  from  this  consideration  we  come  to 
the  qualifications  themselves,  we  are  met  by  this 
difficulty,  that  they  are  not  based,  as  they  ought  to 
be,  upon  the  statements  themselves,  but  only  upon 
a  consideration  of  the  parties.  For  it  is  at  once 
evident,  though  Mr.  Goode  has  not  adverted  to  it, 
that  these  qualifications  are  brought  out  by  con- 
sidering that  the  blessing  of  Baptism  implies  a 
Giver  and  a  receiver,  and  that  we  may  consider 
under  what  condition  the  one  gives,  and  what 
conditions  render  the  other  a  suitable  recipient. 
God's  previous  election  is  a  condition  deduced 
from  the  law  according  to  which  the  Giver  bestows 
His  blessings.  u  Future  faith  and  repentance"  is 
a  condition  drawn  from  what  the  receiver  ivill  be : 
present  "faith  and  repentance"  from  what  he  is. 
So  that  we  are  led  back  to  that  which  had  been 
previously  excluded  —  the    external  reasons  for 


our  offices :  that  regeneration  is  not  an  ecclesiastical  relation 
(though  baptism  includes  such  a  relation,)  but  a  new  nature; 
and  that  whether  we  can  reconcile  the  expressions  in  our 
offices  with  this  opinion  or  not,  we  must  not  make  a  new  kind 
of  regeneration  to  meet  the  supposed  difficulty." — Christian 
Observer,  No.  27,  1840,  pp.  166,  167. 

7 


74 

thinking  the  Doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration 
false  ;  and  these  have  been  shown  to  be  no  just 
grounds  for  assigning  to  the  words  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  any  other  meaning  than  that  which  they 
naturally  convey.  These  external  arguments  are 
no  excuse  for  the  Church  if  she  affirms  any  thing 
unconditionally,  which  is  only  conditionally  true. 
It  is  needful  that  her  statements  themselves  should 
imply  at  all  events  that,  which  they  do  not  express. 
Mr.  Goode  seems  to  suppose  that  because  the 
Church  might  have  limited  her  wTords,  therefore 
he  is  at  liberty  to  conclude  that  she  has  done  so. 
''Because  such  general  statements  refer  to  the 
case  of  adults,  as  wTell  as  infants  ;  and  in  the 
former  case  it  is  admitted  that  faith  and  repent- 
ance are  necessary  to  a  salutary  reception  of  the 
Sacrament  ;  therefore  some  similar  qualification 
mayhcLYe  been  held  necessary  in  .the  latter  case." 
Here  is  a  plain  forgetfulness  of  the  old  logical 
rule,  Exceptio  probat  regulam.  This  rule  does 
not  mean,  as  often  understood,  that  every  state- 
ment admits  of  exceptions,  but  that  to  admit  a 
particular  instance  to  be  an  exception,  is  to  allow 
the  truth  of  the  general  rule  from  which  it  is  a 
deviation.  Those  who  drew  up  the  form  for 
baptizing  children,  affirmed  unconditionally  that 
all  baptized  infants  were  regenerate.  When  a 
form  for  baptizing  adults  was  subsequently  added, 
the  new  condition  of  faith  and  repentance  which 
their  age  introduced,  made  it  necessary  to  annex 
a  specific  limitation.  But  this  limitation  does 
not,  as  Mr.  Goode  supposes,  destroy  the  general 
rule,  but  establishes  it.     For  the  necessity  of  an- 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  75 

nexing  this  condition,  shows  that  when  it  is  not 
annexed,  the  rule  is  unconditional. 

The  conditions  which  have  been  produced 
would  be  no  justification,  therefore,  *  for  the 
Church's  language,  but  would  rather  tend  to 
impeach  her  truth.  But  let  us  consider  them  in 
themselves.  The  third  condition,  drawn  from  a 
consideration  of  the  state  in  which  the  recipient 
is,  that,  namely,  of  the  Infant's  faith,  is  not  advo- 
cated, but  only  noticed  by  Mr.  Goode.  But  it 
requires  to  be  considered,  because  it  acts  a  very 
important  part  in  his  system.  Were  this,  indeed, 
a  mere  question  between  Mr.  Goode  and  Luther, 
to  whom  he  attributes  the  opinion,  it  were  need- 
less to  enter  upon  it,  since  we  are  not  concerned 
with  the  views  of  those  who  are  not  regarded  as 
authorities  by  our  Church.3      But  by  attributing 

3  It  may  be  well  to  state  explicitly  on  what  ground  the  senti- 
ments of  Luther  respecting  Baptism  are  of  importance  to  mem- 
bers of  the  English  Church.  In  the  year  1523,  Luther  published 
what  he  called  "The  Book  of  Baptism,  translated  into  German," 
"  Das  Tauf  biichlin  verdeudscht."  This  book  he  did  not  profess 
altogether  to  approve,  though  he  found  in  it  nothing  positively 
censurable;  but  he  states  in  his  preface,  "in  order  to  spare  weak 
consciences,  I  have  let  it  remain  much  as  it  was,  that  they  might 
not  complain  I  wished  to  introduce  a  new  Baptism."  It  may 
be  found  in  German  in  his  works,  vol.  ii.  p.  227,  Jena,  1572. 
This  book  (either  from  choice,  or  by  command)  formed  the 
basis  of  the  form  which  Bucer  afterwards  compiled  for  Herman 
of  Cologne,  a.  n.  1543,  and  the  two  forms  were  plainly  in  the 
hands  of  those  who  compiled  our  own  Liturgy.  Now  Mr. 
Goode  argues,  since  Luther  employed  the  same  general  state- 
ments which  were  afterwards  adopted  in  our  Services,  our  Re- 
formers need  not  have  believed  them  any  more  than  he  did.  It 
is  of  moment,  then,  to  show,  as  Luther's  words  most  abundantly 
establish,  that  he  fully  believed  in  the  truth  of  those  general 
statements,  which  he  copied  from  the   ancient  Services.     And 


76 


this  notion  to  Luther,  Mr.  Goode  gets  rid  of  the 
otherwise  unequivocal  language  in  which  Luther 
had  spoken  of  baptism,  and  which  passed  from 
Lutheran  sources  both  into  the  Liturgy  of  Her- 
man, and  into  the  first  Book  of  King  Edward. 
For  since  such  faith  is  assumed  to  require  pre- 
disposing grace,4  as  that  of  adults  confessedly 
does,  therefore  Baptism  will  only  be  efficacious 
when  it  has  made  use  of  a  prevenient  gift  of 
grace  already  bestowed  upon  the  recipient.  But 
this  supposition  involves  the  strange  hypothesis, 
"which  Mr.  Goode  allows  "  may  seem  to  many  in 


this  circumstance  would  prepare  us  to  expect  that  Cranmer,  who 
published  a  Catechism  drawn  from  German  sources,  entertained 
the  same  opinion.  On  this  subject,  then,  and  as  the  translator 
of  a  Form  which  our  own  in  part  imitated,  the  sentiments  of 
Luther  are  of  importance  even  to  those  who  do  not  refer  to  him 
in  other  particulars,  and  on  this  ground,  and  this  only,  is  he 
quoted  as  an  authority  in  the  present  work. 

4  Such  is  Mr.  Goode's  account  of  the  effect  of  the  view  he 
assigns  to  Luther,  and  the  same  it  would  seem  must  be  Mr. 
Gorham's  opinion  upon  the  subject.  For  he  states  that  the 
"  Article  does  not  except  infants  from  the  necessity  of  that  due 
qualification"  of  faith  ;  and  that  it  "  therefore  teaches  that  there 
must  have  been  a  prevenient  act  of  grace  to  render  such  infants 
worthy" — (Gorham's  Examination,  Answer,  71:)  and  again, 
"  as  infants  are  by  nature  unworthy  recipients  .  .  .  they  cannot 
receive  any  benefit  from  Baptism,  except  there  shall  have  been 
a  prevenient  act  of  grace  to  make  them  worthy,"  Ans.  15.  This 
seems  to  imply  the  exercise  of  some  responsible  powers,  which 
prevenient  grace  is  given  to  influence,  for  otherwise  why 
should  Baptism,  which  is  only  the  gift  of  grace,  need  a  preli- 
minary act,  any  more  than  prevenient  grace  itself  does?  The 
only  ground  on  which  the  necessity  of  prevenient  grace  can  be 
rested,  is  the  analogy  of  adult  Baptism;  and  it  is  needed  by  the 
adult,  because  his  responsible  powers  require  to  be  prepared. 
So  that  the  requirement  is  without  meaning,  unless  there  is  to 
be  an  exercise  of  responsibility  in  the  infant  also. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  77 

the  present  day  singular,"  that  new-born  infants 
possess  powers  of  consciousness  of  which  they 
give  no  indication,  and  are  really  responsible 
agents  capable  of  exercising  actual  faith.  For 
unless  Luther's  words  are  to  be  taken  for  as  much 
as  this,  they  fail  of  effecting  Mr.  Goode's  object, 
which  is  to  show  that  grace  is  not  in  all  cases 
bestowed  upon  infants  in  Baptism.  To  do  this, 
it  is  necessary  to  place  infant  faith  upon  the  same 
footing  with  the  faith  of  adults  ;  and  since  Luther 
did  not  hold  the  high  Calvinistic  notion,  but  sup- 
posed that  the  unfruitfulness  of  Baptism  in  unbe- 
lieving adults  results  not  from  an  Absolute  Decree, 
but  from  neglect  of  that  preventing  grace  whereby 
God  is  willing  to  call  all  men  to  repentance, 
therefore  the  unfruitfulness  of  infant  Baptism 
must  be  charged  to  the  infant's  own  responsi- 
bility. Such  is  Mr.  Goode's  view  of  Luther's 
words,  "  we  bring  a  child  to  a  minister  of  the 
Church  to  be  baptized,  in  this  hope  and  persua- 
sion that  it  certainly  believes,  and  we  pray  that 
God  may  give  it  faith." 

Now,  in  thus  charging  Luther  with  attributing 
ads  of  faith  to  infants,  Mr.  Goode  certainly  does 
not  stand  alone  ;  for  one  of  the  usual  arguments 
employed  against  him  by  members  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  was,  that  his  words  must  needs  have  this 
signification  ;  while  the  Anabaptists  alleged  the 
same  statements  as  an  argument  against  baptizing 
infants  at  all.  And  perhaps  Luther's  early  state- 
ments were  sufficiently  unguarded  to  allow  an  op- 
ponent to  draw  such  inferences.  But  it  must  be 
remembered,  both  that  Luther  altogether  denied 
that  he  used  these  words  in  the  sense  which  his 
7* 


78 

opponents  assigned  to  them,  and  also  that  his 
language  may  in  some  degree  be  accounted  for  by 
the  peculiar  terminology  which  had  been  prevalent. 
For  it  had  been  held  ever  since  the  Council  of 
Vienne,  that  a  gift  of  grace  not  only  was  bestowed 
on  infants  at  Baptism,  which  had  been  believed 
from  the  first  origin  of  Christianity,  but  that  they 
received  the  infused  habits  of  faith,  hope,  and 
charity.  If  it  were  asked  how  this  consisted  with 
the  unconsciousness  of  the  infant  mind,  the  answer 
was  found  in  a  distinction  between  acts  and  habits. 
Of  the  first,  children  were  allowed  to  be  wholly 
incapable,  but  not  of  the  second.  Aquinas  accord- 
ingly lays  down  "  that  faith  and  charity  depend  on 
the  will  of  men,  yet  so  that  the  habit  of  these  and 
other  virtues  requires  the  potentiality  of  will,  which 
infants  possess ;  but  to  put  these  virtues  into  act 
requires  an  act  of  will,  of  which  infants  are  in- 
capable."5 When  Luther,  then,  in  his  work  on 
the  Babylonish  Captivity,  was  asserting  the  univer- 
sality of  the  principle  of  faith,  he  was  met  by  the 
question  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  he  solved  it  by 
saying  that  the  circumstance  whereby  infants  wTere 
rendered  acceptable  to  God,  was  the  faith  which 
was  infused  into  them,  and  not  the  virtues.  But 
when  it  was  alleged  that  in  this  case  he  must  mean 
to  attribute  to  them  actual  faith,  and  thus  that  he 
fell  into  the  absurd  notion  of  supposing  them  to  be 
conscious  agents,  he  altogether  denied  the  charge, 
and  explained  his  doctrine  by  the  very  illustration 
of  the  character  possessed  in  sleep,  which  had  been 
employed  by  Aquinas.     "  What  scriptural  grounds 

5  Summa  Theol.  iii.  Q.  Ixix.  5. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  79 

there  are  for  saying,  as  some  do,  that  when  children 
are  baptized  they  understand  the  words  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  have  an  actual  belief  in  them,  and  so  are 
saved,  I  could  never  discern."  Such  was  Bucer's 
objection  in  the  conference  at  Wittenberg.  To 
which  Luther  replied,  "  that  this  was  not  his 
opinion  or  that  of  his  friends;  but  just  as  we  are 
numbered  among  the  faithful  even  in  our  sleep,  and 
are  really  faithful,  though  we  have  no  actual  thought 
of  God,  so  that  in  infants  there  is  an  initial  principle 
of  faith,  which  yet  in  God's  work,  acting  upon  them 
according  to  the  law  of  their  capacity  (a  law  of 
which  we  know  nothing,)  and  that  this  he  called 
faith.  That  he  had  rather  no  discussion  was  raised 
on  this  subject,  nor  that  any  one  attempted  to 
investigate  in  what  way  God  effects  this  His  work 
in  them."6 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  Luther  did  not  design  to 
attribute  actual 7  faith  to  children,  but  bestowed  the 

6  Buceri  Script.  Ang.  p.  656. 

7  As  this  is  a  point  of  considerable  moment,  I  will  quote  the 
account  which  is  given  of  it  by  an  author  of  high  reputation  : 
*'  The  Treatiser  chargeth  me,  that  whereas  Luther  defendeth 
that  infants  in  Baptism  actually  believe,  I  endeavour  to  wrest 
his  words  to  habitual  faith  ;  which  sense,  he  saith,  Luther's  dis- 
courses will  not  admit;  and  for  proof  hereof  referreth  the  reader 
to  certain  places  in  Luther,  and  to  the  positions  of  his  followers. 
.  .  .  The  reader  cannot  but  find  by  Luther's  discourses-,  and  the 
doctrine  of  his  scholars,  that  I  have  rightly  delivered  his  opinion 
to  be,  that  infants  are  filled  with  habitual  faith  when  they  are  re- 
generate, and  not  that  they  have  any  such  acts  of  faith  or  know- 
ledge of  God,  as  men  of  years  have.  Let  us,  therefore,  hear 
what  Luther  himself  will  say:  'Some  men,'  saith  he,  •  will  ob- 
ject against  that  which  I  have  said,  touching  the  necessity  of 
faith  in  such  as  are  to  receive  the  Sacraments  with  profit,  that  in- 
fants have  no  faith,  nor  apprehension  of  God's  mercies,  and  that 
therefore  either  faith  is  not  so  necessarily  required  to  the  due 


80 

name  of  faith  on  that  spiritual  gift  which  God 
infuses  into  them  in  Baptism.  Accordingly,  in  the 
agreement  which  he  concluded  with  Bucer  at  Wit- 
tenberg, it  was  expressly  stated  that  children  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  Baptism  ;  that  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  they  understand,  but  that  motions 
and  inclinations  tending  towards  faith  and  love  are 
bestowed  upon  them,  and  that  in  this  sense  it  may 

receiving  of  the  Sacrament,  or  that  infants  are  baptized  in  vain. 
Here,  J  say,  that  which  all  say,  that  other  men's  faith,  even  the 
faith  of  such  as  present  them  to  Baptism,  steadeth  little  children. 
For  as  the  word  of  God  is  mighty  when  the  sound  thereof  is 
heard,  even  to  the  changing  the  heart  of  a  wicked  man,  which  is 
no  less  unapt  to  hear  the  voice  of  God,  and  to  listen  unto  it, 
than  any  little  babe:  so  by  the  prayer  of  the  Church,  which  out 
of  faith  (to  which  all  things  are  possible)  presenteth  it  to  baptism, 
the  child  is  changed,  cleansed,  and  renewed,  by  the  infusion  of 
faith,  or  by  faith  which  is  infused  and  poured  into  it.'  Thus 
doth  Luther  express  his  own  meaning  touching  this  point.  Now 
let  us  hear  what  his  followers  will  say.  '  It  was  agreed  upon,' 
says  Chemnitius,  'amongst  the  followers  of  Luther'  (/.  e.,  at  the 
conference  at  Wittenberg,  a.  d.  153d),  'that  when  we  say  in- 
fants believe  or  have  faith,  we  must  not  imagine  they  do  under- 
stand or  feel  the  motions  of  faith.  But  their  error  is  rejected, 
who  suppose  that  infants  baptized  please  God,  and  are  saved 
ivithout  any  operation  or  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  them  ; 
whereas  Christ  pronounceth,  that  unless  a  man  be  born  anew  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  So  that  this  is  all  that  Luther  and  the  rest  meant,  that 
children  cannot  be  made  partakers  of  those  benefits  that  God 
offereth  to  men  in  Baptism,  nor  inherit  eternal  life  by  virtue  of 
the  faith  of  the  Church,  without  some  change  wrought  in  them 
fitting  them  to  be  joined  to  God,  which  change  or  alteration  in 
them  they  call  faith  :  for  they  constantly  deny  that  they  feel 
any  such  motions  of  faith ;  but  a  kind  of  habitual  faith  only, 
there  being  nothing  in  faith,  but  such  an  act  of  believing  as  they 
deny,  or  the  seed,  root,  and  habit,  whence  actual  motions  in 
due  time  do  flow.'  " — Field's  Book  of  the  Church,  Appendix 
to  the  5th  Book  second  part,  sec.  ii.  p.  837. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  81 

be  said  that  they  have  faith.8  So  that  instead  of 
regarding  faith  as  a  condition  of  the  infant's  mind, 
by  which  Baptism  might  be  rendered  either  useless 
or  beneficial,  Luther  looked  at  it  as  only  the  fittest 
name  for  that  seminal  principle,  which  he  asserted 
so  strongly  that  Baptism  in  itself  always  conveyed. 
"Some  persons,"  he  says,  "preach  and  magnify 
Baptism,  but  yet  err  in  that  they  rest  it  not  on 
God's  command  and  institution,  but  on  some  human 
work,  on  our  faith  and  dignity,  as  if  it  were  not 
enough  that  God  should  have  appointed  and  com- 
manded it,  but  it  must  first  be  confirmed  by  us  ; 
and  as  though  Baptism  had  no  existence  or  no 
efficacy  without  the  accession  of  our  faith.  To 
this  I  make  objection,  and  say,  whatever  be  my 
faith,  firm  or  weak,  present  or  absent,  this  neither 
adds  any  thing  to  Baptism  nor  takes  any  thing 
away.9  A  similar  passage  occurs  in  the  Catechism, 
wherein  he  says,  that  "  after  all,  the  main  force  of 
the  matter  does  not  depend  on  this,  whether  the 
child  who  is  baptized  believes  or  no ;  seeing  that 
through  want  of  this  the  Baptism  suffers  no 
detraction.  For  its  main  point  rests  on  God's 
appointment."10 

This  subject  has  been  dwelt  upon,  because  it  is 
of  moment  to  show  that  not  a  shadow  of  reason 
exists  for  doubting  that  Luther's  repeated  state- 
ments respecting  the  regeneration  of  infants  in  ]3ap- 

s  Buceri  Script.  Ang.  p.  668. 

9  Homilia  de  Baptismo,  vol.  vii.  p.  351.     Wittenberg,  1558. 

10  "  Deinde  hoc  quoque  dicimus,  nobis  non  summam  vim  in  hoc 
sitam  esse,  imm  ille  qui  baptizetur  credat  necne  ;  per  hoc  enim 
Baptismo  nihil  detrahitur.  Verum  summa  rei  in  Verbo  ct  pr^p- 
cepto  Dei  consistit." — Catechismus  Major,  works,  v.  638. 


82 

tism,  are  to  be  taken  in  their  simple  and  obvious 
sense.  The  only  ground  for  such  an  opinion  which 
Mr.  Goode  can  allege  depends,  upon  the  strange 
conception  which  some  of  Luther's  earlier  expres- 
sions had  seemed  to  favour,  but  which  he  himself, 
in  later  years,  distinctly  repudiated.  Yet,  on  the 
strength  of  this  argument  Mr.  Goode  infers  that  the 
expressions  in  the  Cologne  Liturgy,  and  in  those  of 
our  own  Church,  need  not  he  taken  in  their  appa- 
rent sense,  because  they  were  formed  on  the  model 
of  the  Nuremberg  Liturgy,  which  Luther  had  ori- 
ginally translated.  The  deduction  would  not  be 
legitimate,  even  if  it  stood  on  a  solid  basis  ;  but  in 
this  case,  the  foundation  on  which  it  rests  has  been 
shown  also  to  be  utterly  illusory. 

So  much  respecting  the  third  of  those  conditions 
for  saving  Baptism,  which  Mr.  Goode  has  produced. 
The  other  two  were — first,  a  sentence  of  previous 
election  to  salvation  on  the  part  of  God  :  and,  se- 
condly, the  prevision  by  God  of  future  faith  and  re- 
pentance. And  respecting  these  two  it  is  necessary 
to  say  a  few7  words. 

If  the  first  or  Calvinistic  hypothesis  be  only  stated 
in  express  words,  its  glaring  repugnancy  to  the 
whole  language  of  the  Prayer-Book,  cannot  fail  to 
be  manifest.  For  take  it  in  any  individual  case. 
See  some  infant  lying  helpless  and  unconscious  in 
its  nurse's  arms,  incapable  alike  of  actual  good  or 
evil.  Its  friends  pause  a  moment  after  bringing  it 
within  the  portals  of  the  sanctuary,  as  though  con- 
scious of  the  risks  of  life,  and  almost  fearful  of  com- 
mitting it  to  the  grave  responsibilities  which  result 
from  dedication  to  God's  service.  There  they  are 
encouraged   by  the   voice  of  the   Priest,  and   by 


OF   HOLY   BAPTISM.  83 

Christ's  merciful  words  in  the  Gospel :  "  Doubt  ye 
not  therefore,  but  earnestly  believe  that  He  will 
likewise  favourably  receive  this  present  Infant." 
Thus  invited,  they  proceed  in  the  service,  "being 
persuaded  of  the  good-will  of  our  heavenly  Father 
towards  this  Infant."  And  could  we  bear  to  speak 
thus,  if  we  knew  that  it  was  at  least  as  probable  as 
not,  that  the  Baptismal  waters  were  in  this  case  rob- 
bed of  their  healing  efficacy,  not  in  consequence 
of  any  thing  which  the  child  was  or  did,  or  could 
do,  but  because  Almighty  God,  by  an  irresistible 
sentence,  had  decreed  to  withhold  from  him  the 
succours  of  grace,  and  thereby  to  consign  him  to 
everlasting  ruin  ?  For  even  if  men  do  not  take  the 
full  view  expressed  by  Calvin,11  and  suppose  that 
the  All-Merciful  makes  a  show  of  bestowing  help, 
in  order  to  enhance  the  guilt  and  misery  of  those 
whose  destruction  He  had  previously  decreed  by  an 
arbitrary  sentence  ;  yet  the  denial  of  sufficient  grace 
must  render  the  whole  language  of  the  service  a 
mockery. 

From  the  harshness  of  this  supposition  men  fly, 
not  unnaturally,  to  the  second  condition  assigned 
by  Mr.  Goode,  and  look  for  the  qualification  of  Bap- 
tism, not  in  the  will  of  Him  who  bestows  grace, 
but  in  the  condition  of  him  who  is  to  receive  it. 
And  since  the  present  condition  of  the  infant  is  that 
of  unconsciousness,  they  refer  to  what  his  condition 
will  be.  According  to  this  theory  "  the  efficacious- 
ness of  Baptism  depends  upon  the  prevision  by  God 
of  future  faith  and  repentance  in  the  child  at  a  sub- 
sequent period  of  life."   Now  it  should  be  observed 

11  "  Quia  Dominus,  ut  magis  convictos  et  inexcusabiles  red- 
dat  se  insinuat  in  eorum  mentes." — Calvin  Instit.  iii.  2,  11. 


84 

that  this  qualification,  if  it  means  any  thing,  is  in- 
compatible with  the  other  which  preceded  it.  For 
if  those  who  bring  the  child  have  a  right  to  assume 
that  something  will  be  bestowed  upon  him,  pro- 
vided it  is  apparent  to  the  foreknowledge  of  the  All- 
wise  that  he  will  hereafter  make  a  good  use  of  the 
endowment,  it  follows  that  the  responsibility  of  man 
has  some  part  in  the  decision  of  his  destiny.  For 
otherwise  this  condition  need  not  be  introduced, 
seeing  that  the  whole  question  would  in  reality  be 
shut  up  in  God's  predetermining  appointment.  To 
dwell,  then,  on  this  condition  ;  to  rest  on  it  as  sup- 
plying, in  itself,  the  reason  why  Baptism  is,  in  some 
cases,  attended  by  grace — in  others  not  attended  by 
it,  is  incompatible  with  an  employment  of  that  other 
condition  of  God's  arbitrary  decree,  which  has  al- 
ready been  mentioned. 

The  passage  in  the  Catechism  on  which  this  con- 
dition is  often  rested,  shall  be  mentioned  before  the 
conclusion  of  this  Chapter ;  at  present  it  need  only 
be  said,  that  it  is  not  open  to  any  one  to  refer  to 
this  condition,  if  he  commits  himself  to  the  other 
condition  of  Calvinism.  To  take  one  or  the  other, 
as  the  occasion  serves,  is  wholly  irrational.  And 
this  will  be  found,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  instance 
of  Cranmer,  to  be  an  error  which  runs  through 
many  of  the  interpretations  wThich  Mr.  Goode  gives 
to  the  words  of  the  Liturgy  and  of  the  Reformers. 
There  are  two  keys,  and  if  one  does  not  serve,  the 
other  may  be  made  available.  But  then  the  keys 
belong  to  different  systems,  and  if  the  one  be  used, 
the  other  ought  to  be  altogether  discarded.  For 
this  condition  of  the  prevision  of  man's  future  con- 
duct is,  in  truth,  a  part  of  that  Pelagian  system, 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  85 

which  is  as  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the 
Gospel,  as  the  system  of  necessity  is  with  the  in- 
stincts of  natural  piety.  For  it  makes  man's  fore- 
seen actions  the  source  of  that  first  gift  of  grace, 
with  which  he  must  start  in  the  career  of  duty.  It 
makes  something,  therefore,  which  may  be  dis- 
cerned in  man,  the  moving  cause  of  God's  first  ad- 
vances towards  him.  And  this  has  been  long  rejected 
by  the  Church  as  a  part  of  the  Pelagian  hypothesis : 
it  has  long  been  held  that  the  first  measure  of  power 
to  will  and  to  do  is  God's  free  gift,  although  it  is  a 
gift  which  does  not  exclude  man's  responsibility.  It 
is  strange,  therefore,  that  this  condition  should  have 
been  relied  upon  by  the  parties  who  of  late  have 
used  it,  since  if  it  means  any  thing,  it  makes  man 
the  original  moving  cause  of  his  own  salvation,  and 
gets  rid  of  the  universality  of  baptismal  grace,  by 
limiting  it  to  those  cases  in  which  it  is  purchased 
by  human  merit.  It  will  be  shown  hereafter,  that 
the  words  of  the  Catechism  do  not,  as  has  some- 
times been  represented,  involve  such  a  condition  : 
and  this  single  consideration  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  they  could  not  do  so.  For  otherwise  the  Church 
would  be  involved  in  that  Pelagian  error,  against 
which  she  uniformly  protests.  But  it  is  one  thing 
to  say  that  the  succours  of  grace  are  so  dispensed, 
as  not  to  supersede  man's  accountableness  ;  another 
to  say  that  the  condition  which  procures  them  is  his 
own  excellence.  For  his  last  system  breaks  that 
golden  chain  whereby  all  created  beings  must  de- 
pend on  the  Ultimate  Source  of  good  as  the  primary 
spring  of  all  virtue  ;  and  while  the  system  of  Ne- 
cessity would  make  man  a  beast,  this  would  make 
him  a  god. 

8 


86  the  church's  estimate 

There  is  in  reality,  then,  only  one  point  of  contact 
between  the  two  first  conditions  which  Mr.  Goode 
suggests  ;  namely,  that  both  of  them  introduce  a 
qualification  into  the  Church's  general  statements, 
and  thus  allow  men  occasionally  to  reject  that  which 
she  asserts,  without  limitation,  to  be  true.  It  has 
already  been  shown,  that  the  very  introduction  of 
such  conditions,  unsanctioned  by  the  expressions 
themselves,  is  a  violation  of  the  plainness  of  speech 
which,  in  common  life,  would  be  accounted  dis- 
honourable. And  nothing  can  be  wTorse  than  on  the 
most  sacred  subjects  to  admit  of  a  conventional  dis- 
honesty. But  let  us  test  somewhat  further  this  prin- 
ciple of  a  charitable  interpretation,  which  results 
either  from  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  condi- 
tions which  have  been  discussed.  Let  us  see 
whether,  if  it  could  be  admitted  in  this  case,  it 
would  tally  with  the  other  parts  of  the  baptismal 
service.  NowT  what  is  the  opinion  before  us  ?  It 
proceeds  on  the  supposition  that  "  God  may  be 
mercifully  present  to  the  child  in"  Baptism,  "  but 
we  have  no  right  to  assume  that  such  will  be  the 
case."  Christ  works  by  "  ministers,  but  only  when 
and  in  what  cases  He  pleases."  Out  of  every  hun- 
dred to  whom  they  administer  the  Sacraments, 
there  may  be  very  few  to  whom  they  minister  more 
than  an  outward  rite  or  ceremony."  This  is  the 
necessary  result,  of  course,  of  the  erroneous  opinion11 
that  to  conceive  sacraments  effectual  is  to  subordinate 
God's  power  to   man's  control.     The  error  arises 


11  So  Mr.  Goode.  "  It  would  be  making  God's  best  gifts  de- 
pendent upon  the  course  of  human  generation,  for  baptism  is  in- 
the  power  of  all."  And  still  more  clearly  Mr.  Gorham,  Sup. 
p.  2G. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  87 

from  forgetting  a  rule  which  even  Luther  incul- 
oates,  "to  be  baptized  in  God's  name,  is  not  to  be 
baptized  by  men,  but  by  God  Himself."13  For 
God  is  equally  supreme  in  those  things  which  He 
does  by  the  agency  of  earthly,  and  those  which  He 
does  by  the  agency  of  heavenly,  instruments  ;  He  as 
truly  feeds  the  nations  by  bread,  as  He  did  the 
Israelites  by  manna.  If,  therefore,  Baptism  be 
really  His  appointment,  it  does  not  cease  to  be  His 
own  act  because  He  employs  the  ministry  of  His 
servants.  But  this  mistake  implies,  of  course,  as  a 
necessary  consequence,  that  the  only  mean  of  ascer- 
taining, whether  any  one  has  partaken  of  the  re- 
generating gift  of  grace,  is  by  observing  whether  he 
is  a  devout  Christian  ;  and  not,  as  Cranmer  says  in 
his  Catechism,  because  "  I  know  for  a  surety  that 
I  am  baptized;"  "and  the  Holy  Ghost  doth  wit- 
ness, that  he  which  is  baptized  hath  put  upon  him 
Christ."  And  hence  results  the  opinion  that  grace 
and  regeneration  are  identical :  the  last  not  being 
any  particular  gift,  or  attainable  in  any  particular 
manner.  And  since  the  gifts  of  grace  may  of 
course  be  bestowed  by  their  Giver  when  and  how 
He  pleases,  therefore  Regeneration  may  be  looked 
for  before  or  after  Baptism,  just  as  well  as  in  that 
ordinance.  And  so  says  Mr.  Goode  ;  "  in  all  cases 
baptism  is  connected  with  regeneration,  only  as  the 
formal  signing  and  sealing  of  the  deed  is  connected 
with  the  completion  of  a  purchase."  "  In  adults 
the  internal  work  of  regeneration  must  be  at  least 
commenced  before  parties  can  properly  receive  Bap- 


13  Siquidem  baptizari  in  nomine  Dei,  non  est  ab  hominibus, 
sed  ab  ipso  Deo  baptizari. —  Catec  2Ir/j. 


88 

tism  ;  and  in  infants,  it  must  either  be  commenced 
or  foreseen  by  God  certainly  to  follow. " 

The  theory,  then,  of  a  charitable  sense,  is  that 
grace  of  any  sort  is  identical  with  the  grace  of  re- 
generation ;  that  since  God  bestows  His  gifts  be- 
fore, in,  or  after  baptism,  no  means  exists  for 
determining  whether  it  is  bestowed  except  the 
effect ;  and  that  consequently  in  the  case  of  any 
child  who  is  brought  to  baptism,  it  is  charitable 
to  affirm  that,  which  it  is  impossible  to  deny.  The 
reader  must  be  reminded  in  a  few  words  what 
was  that  other  system,  which  was  before  explained, 
and  which  assumes  that  all  baptized  infants  have 
been  regenerated.  For  the  cause  of  this  it  refers 
to  the  grace  of  God,  which  originally  took  up  its 
dwelling  in  the  Humanity  of  the  Word,  and  is 
since  distributed  through  sacraments.  Its  office 
is  the  reconstruction  of  that  common  nature,  which 
was  corrupted  in  Adam  ;  a  work  which  is  declared 
in  Holy  Scripture  to  have  its  commencement  in 
Baptism.  In  this  case  the  gift  is  not  to  be  esti- 
mated merely  by  the  result,  but  by  God's  promise. 
For  it  is  not  identical  with  grace  at  large,  but  is 
that  peculiar  and  separate  grace,  which  results 
from  union  with  Christ's  Body.  In  adults  this 
process  is  liable  to  be  obstructed  through  the  op- 
position of  their  individual  wilfulness  :  in  infants 
there  can  be  no  such  repugnancy.  In  the  first, 
therefore,  regeneration  is  only  affirmed  to  take 
place,  when  their  will  has  yielded  to  the  suasion 
of  preventing  grace  ;  in  the  second,  regeneration 
is  declared  to  be  coincident  with  valid  Baptism. 
Such  are  the  two  system  ;  it  has  been  shown  that 
the  last  alone  accords  with  the  Church's  general 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM,  89 

assertions  respecting  baptismal  grace  ;  let  us  see 
whether  any  other  passages  in  the  Service-Book 
enable  us  to  test  their  applicability. 

Now  such  a  test  may  be  found  by  considering 
what  is  the  Church's  mode  of  speaking  respecting 
those  who  are  not  baptized.  For  since  God  may 
plainly  bestow  His  grace  before  as  well  as  after 
Baptism,  therefore  the  judgment  of  charity  does 
not  allow  us  to  deny  its  presence  in  one  case,  any 
more  than  in  the  other.  Before,  as  well  as  in  Bap- 
tism, it  is  equally  charitable  to  affirm  that,  which 
it  is  impossible  to  deny.  But  what  is  the  Church's 
mode  of  proceeding  ?  In  the  case  of  adults  she  not 
only  supposes  that  they  may  have  grace,  but  be- 
fore she  admits  them  to  Baptism,  she  takes  the 
utmost  pains  to  ascertain  that  they  actually  pos- 
sess it.  No  securities  of  course  can  altogether 
guard  against  the  deceitfulness  of  the  human  heart, 
but  where  "  timely  notice"  is  given  to  the  Bishop, 
"  that  so  due  care  may  be  taken  for  the  examina- 
tion" of  the  parties,  where  they  are  "exhorted  to 
prepare  themselves  with  prayer  and  fasting,"  and 
finally  are  "  found  fit,"  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
they  must  be  supposed  to  come  as  meet  receivers 
to  Baptism.  And  of  course  to  exhort  them  to 
"prayer  and  fasting,"  is  to  imply  that  they  have 
partaken  of  some  measure  of  that  grace,  without 
which  such  exercises  must  be  useless.  Now  if 
the  Church  supposes  that  regeneration  is  attained 
wherever  God  bestows  grace,  if  she  judges  of  it 
merely  by  the  general  conduct,  and  does  not  sup- 
pose it  to  be  associated  with  any  peculiar  ordi- 
nance ;  if  she  thinks  that  Baptism  is  only  a  sign  of 
that  gift  which  God  has  before  bestowed  on  every 
8* 


90  the  church's  estimate 

meet  receiver,  how  can  she  possibly  affirm  that 
such  persons  are  not  regenerate  till  they  approach 
the  baptismal  font  ?  I  waive  the  fact  that  after 
they  are  baptized  she  pronounces  them  regenerate, 
for  this  men  will  attribute  to  the  judgment  of 
charity ;  but  how  comes  she  to  be  so  wanting  in 
charity  as  previously  to  deny  them  this  gift?  She 
has  taken  the  utmost  pains  to  ascertain  that 
they  are  fit  recipients — she  has  satisfied  herselt 
that  so  far  as  human  testimony  goes,  they  possess 
those  qualifications  which  are  supposed  to  imply 
that  the  blessing  of  regeneration  has  already  been 
vouchsafed,  and  then  proceeds  to  ask  it  for  them 
as  a  future  benefit.  "We  call  upon  Thee  for 
these  persons,  that  they,  coming  to  Thy  Holy 
Baptism,  may  receive  remission  of  their  sins  by 
spiritual  regeneration." 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  in  this  case  the  "  charitable 
hypothesis"  is  altogether  inapplicable.  For  the 
Church  does  not  carry  it  far  enough.  If  this  were 
all  which  she  intended  to  say  respecting  the  bap- 
tized, she  could  not  refuse  to  employ  the  same 
language  respecting  meet  Catechumens. 

And  it  is  not  unimportant  to  observe,  that 
though  exhorting  the  candidates  for  Baptism  to 
previous  prayer,  the  Church  does  not  include 
them  among  those  whose  supplications  she  in- 
vokes for  the  validity  of  this  healing  ordinance. 
She  calls  on  the  congregation  to  pray  that  "  these 
Thy  servants  may  be  received  into  the  ark  of 
Christ's  Church ;"  but  she  does  not  associate  the 
prayers  of  the  candidates  with  those  of  Christians  ; 
to  the  former  she  says,  "  ye  have  heard  how  the 
congregation  hath  prayed,  that  our  Lord  Jesus 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  91 

Christ  would  vouchsafe  to  receive  you."  A  mo- 
ment before  Baptism  she  prays,  "  regard,  we  be- 
seech Thee,  the  supplications  of  this  congregation  ; 
sanctify  this  water  to  the  mystical  washing  away 
of  sin  ;  and  grant  that  the  persons  now  to  be  bap- 
tized therein  may  receive  the  fulness  of  Thy 
grace."  A  moment  after  Baptism  she  says, 
"  seeing  now,  dearly  beloved  Brethren,  that  these 
persons  are  regenerate."  Now  what  a  mockery  is 
this  whole  transaction,  if  the  Church  has  pre- 
viously ascertained  to  its  own  satisfaction,  that  re- 
generation had  in  reality  been  before  dispensed  ! 
For  in  truth,  on  what  is  called  the  "  charitable 
hypothesis,"  regeneration  can  never  be  supposed 
to  be  conferred  on  adults  in  Baptism.  Not  on 
meet  receivers,  for  they  are  regenetated  already  : 
not  on  unmeet,  for  since  by  the  hypothesis  they 
must  come  hypocritically,  they  cannot  expect  a 
blessing  which  they  do  not  seek.  Thus  would 
the  Church  be  supposed  to  affirm  that  every  meet 
receiver  was  unregenerate  before  baptism,  and 
regenerated  in  the  act  of  baptism  itself ;  while  in 
reality  both  statements  would  be  false-  -the  bless- 
ing would  never  be  bestowed  at  the  time  as- 
serted, never  absent  when  its  presence  was  denied. 
If  we  .turn  from  the  Service  for  adults  to  that 
for  infants,  we  find  in  it,  likewise,  that  the  theory 
of  a  charitable  construction  is  equally  untenable. 
The  ground  of  its  inapplicability  in  the  former 
case  was,  that  by  Regeneration  is  meant  that  re- 
newal of  our  common  nature,  which  began  in 
Christ,  and  in  Sacraments  is  extended  to  His 
brethren.  Since  in  adults  this  work  may  be  ob- 
structed by  the  waywardness  of  the   individual 


92 


will,  the  influence  of  preventing  grace  is  needed 
as  a  preparation  for  it.  But  because  Regenera- 
tion is  not  identical  with  grace  at  large,  therefore 
it  is  not  spoken  of  as  effected,  when  preventing 
grace  is  supposed  to  be  possessed  :  the  judgment 
of  charity  does  not  lead  to  any  such  assumption  ; 
but  the  term  is  reserved  to  express  that  particular 
work,  of  which  Baptism  is  the  appointed  means. 
Now  in  exact  conformity  with  this  system,  we 
find  that  the  regeneration  of  baptized  infants  is 
asserted  because  their  nature  admits  of  recon- 
struction, though  there  is  no  room  in  them  for  the 
operation  of  preventing  grace  ;  and  we  find  as- 
sertions made,  and  laws  passed,  which,  but  for 
this  supposition,  ought  in  common  charity  to  be 
extended  to  unbaptized  infants  also.  For  it  is 
plain,  that  the  unconsciousness  of  their  age  ex- 
cludes infants  from  the  action  of  preventing  grace 
upon  their  individual  will.  The  influences  of 
wThich  alone  they  can  be  susceptible,  must  be  those 
which  address  themselves  to  that  general  nature, 
from  which  our  separate  responsibility  has  been 
distinguished.  And  such  a  change  is  plainly  re- 
cognized, when  it  is  said  that  "  it  is  certain  by 
God's  word,  that  children  which  are  baptized, 
dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubt- 
edly saved."  With  which  must  be  associated  the 
fact,  that  to  baptized  children  only  is  allowed 
participation  in  the  Funeral  Offices  of  the  Church. 
This  is  not  a  mere  accident,  but  is  a  positive  rule, 
founded  on  those  ancient  Canons,  which  declared 
that  those,  with  whom  was  no  communion  when 
living,  cannot  be  admitted  to  communion  after 
death.     Now  what   can  more  strongly  mark  the 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  93 

Church's  opinion,  that  in  Baptism  the  nature  ot 
the  old  Adam  is  exchanged  for  that  which  was 
re-fashioned  in  Christ ;  than  her  declaration  that 
the  salvation  of  baptized  Infants,  dying  before  they 
commit  actual  sin,  is  affirmed  in  Scripture  ?  Here 
is  a  direct  assertion  that  baptized  infants  are 
partakers  of  that  renewal  of  man's  nature,  which 
commenced  through  the  regeneration  of  humanity 
in  Christ.  For  what  does  Holy  Scripture  tell  us 
of  the  salvation  of  mankind,  except  as  dependent 
on  this  great  event?  It  every  where  sets  forth 
this  "  new  and  living  way,"  as  the  only  revealed 
channel  of  Divine  grace.  So  that  when  we  are 
told  that  baptized  infants,  dying  before  they  com- 
mit actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  possessors  of  the 
Scripture  promise  of  salvation,  here  is  a  distinct 
affirmation  that  they  have  undergone  that  change 
for  which  we  supplicate,  when  we  say,  "  Give  Thy 
Holy  Spirit  to  this  infant,  that  he  may  be  born 
again,  and  made  an  heir  of  everlasting  salvation." 
And  here,  therefore,  we  have  an  opportunity 
of  seeing  when  the  Church  uses  the  judgment  of 
Charity,  and  when  she  does  not.  For  we  have 
no  proof  that  God,  whose  mercies  are  infinite, 
may  not  bestow  His  grace  upon  unbaptized  chil- 
dren also.  And  therefore  our  Church,  while  af- 
firming the  salvation  of  those  who  have  been  made 
members  of  Christ,  exercises  a  charitable  judg- 
ment respecting  others.  But  she  does  not  speak 
of  them  in  the  same  terms,  which  she  uses  re- 
specting the  baptized.  On  the  contrary,  she  does 
not  allow  her  ministers  to  use  her  Burial  Ser- 
vice over  their  remains,  and  she  studiously  ab- 
stains from  pronouncing  respecting  their  state 


94 


She  leaves  ground  for  hope,  where  she  possesses 
no  certainty.  Now  this  is  exactly  the  position,  in 
which  those  who  deny  Baptismal  grace  would 
place  her  in  respect  to  baptized  infants.  Her 
words,  therefore,  respecting  the  unbaptized,  ought 
on  this  theory  to  be  the  same  which  she  employs 
respecting  those  who  have  received  Baptism.  Else 
she  is  wanting  in  that  Charity  towards  the  one, 
which  she  exercises  towards  the  other. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  the  Church's  different 
treatment  of  baptized  and  unbaptized  infants  is 
wholly  fatal  to  the  idea,  that  she  is  expressing 
nothing  but  a  charitable  judgment  respecting  the 
former.  The  hope  for  which  she  leaves  room  re- 
specting the  one,  renders  emphatic  the  certainty 
which  she  reserves  for  the  other.  And  if  any 
question  remained  on  this  subject,  it  would  be 
cleared  up  by  the  obvious  difficulty  in  which  Mr. 
Goode  involves  himself,  when  he  attempts  to  re- 
concile this  rubric  with  a  denial  of  the  regenera- 
tion of  all  baptized  infants.  For  he  is  driven  to 
the  avowal  of  principles,  on  which  the  Church's 
laws  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  act.  Here  is 
certainly  to  all  appearance  a  general  statement, 
from  which  no  baptized  infants  are  excluded. 
And  the  rule  respecting  the  admission  of  the  bap- 
tized, and  of  the  baptized  only,  to  the  rights  of 
burial,  gives  it  a  practical  interpretation  which 
cannot  be  mistaken.  And  yet  it  is  indispensable 
to  Mr.  Goode's  position  to  find  some  condition  by 
which  it  may  be  limited,  otherwise  the  Church 
must  express  more  than  a  charitable  hope  ;  she 
must  be  speaking  of  deed,  not  an  hypothesis.  The 
qualification  which  he  adduces  is  worth  attention  ; 


OF   HOLY    BAPTISM.  95 

but  still  more  the  grounds  which  lead  to  its  at- 
tention. "Our  Church  administering  Baptism  to 
infants  as  the  children  of  true  believers,14  this 
rubric  must  be  understood  accordingly  ;  otherwise 
our  system  of  theology  is  thrown  into  utter  confu- 
sion." Again  he  says,  "  no  man  has  any  right  to 
stretch  the  rubric  as  to  the  undoubted  salvation 
of  all  baptized  infants  dying  in  their  infancy,  so 
as  to  include  any  others  than  the  infants  of  pro- 
fessing Christians And  further,  it  is  clearly 

open  to  us  to  maintain,  that  such  a  profession 
must  be  a  reality,  to  obtain  any  blessing  from 
God." 

Baptism,  that  is,  is  not  the  right  of  all  infants, 
but  only  of  those  whose  parents  are  Christians. 
And  since  Christianity  is  a  life  and  not  a  profes- 
sion, therefore  none  can  really  challenge  its  bene- 
fits whose  parents  are  not  truly  devout  Christians. 
When  the  Church,  therefore,  asserts  that  "  children 
who  are  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual 
sin  are  undoubtedly  saved,"  she  makes  a  general 
assertion,  because  it  is  uncertain  who  are  its  legiti- 
mate objects  ;  but  none  except  the  children  of  re- 
ligious, parents  possess  that  qualification,  without 
which  her  words  are  inapplicable. 

Such  is  Mr.  Goode's  mode  of  avoiding  the  in- 
ference, that  the  Church  intends  to  make  a  gene- 

u  The  twenty-ninth  Canon,  which  forbids  Fathers  to  be 
Sponsors  for  their  children,  is  well  known  to  have  been  designed 
to  counteract  the  notion  expressed  by  Mr.  Goode,  that  "  the 
faith  of  the  parent"  is  "  imputable  to  the  infant";  and  to  show 
that  "  it  is  not  the  virtue  of  our  Fathers,"  as  Hooker  says, 
"  that  can  give  us  the  true  holiness  which  we  have  by  virtue 
of  our  new  birth." — Vide  an  Article  in  the  British  Magazine, 
for  Feb.  1840,  p.  1G4. 


96 

ral  statement  respecting  all  baptized  infants.  He 
can  find  no  means  of  escaping  the  difficulty,  but 
to  introduce  a  qualification  for  Baptism,  which 
may  limit  the  right  of  partaking  it — that  qualifi- 
cation being  the  consistent  Christianity  of  the 
parents.  Now  it  is  needless  to  refer  to  the  opi- 
nions of  our  best  divines,15  who  are  notoriously 


15  Hooker  states  the  arguments  against  Mr.  Goode's  opinion. 
Eccl.  Pol.  v.  64-5.  "  To  restrain  favours,  is  an  odious  thing ; 
to  enlarge  them,  acceptable  both  to  God  and  Man."  "  The  an- 
cients," says  Wall,  "did  not  in  the  baptizing  of  children,  go  by 
that  rule,  which  some  presbyterians  would  establish,  viz.,  that 
none  are  to  be  baptized  but  the  children  of  parents  actually  godly 
and  religious."  "  Bishop  Stillingfleet  has  fully  shown  the  ab- 
surdity and  inconsistency  of  such  presbyterians;  and  how  they 
can  never,  in  many  cases  that  may  be  put,  come  to  a  resolution 
or  agreement  what  children  may  be  baptized,  and  what  not;  and 
has  cleared  the  grounds  of  Baptism  from  such  scruples." — His- 
tory of  Infant  Baptism,  part  ii.  c.  6.  As  the  limitation  of  Bap- 
tism to  the  children  of  Christians  is  so  essential  a  link  in  Mr. 
Goode's  system,  it  may  be  well  to  observe  the  testimony  which 
was  borne  against  it,  even  when  Calvinism  was  in  the  ascend- 
ant, by  our  own  leading  divines  of  the  Calvinistic  party.  At  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  a  question  arose  "  concerning  the  baptizing  of  the 
children  of  ethnic  parents.  The  English  first  exhibited  their 
minds  in  writing  to  this  effect :  That  infants,  if  they  were  justly 
taken,  as  if  they  were  given,  or  bought,  or  the  like  (for  it  might 
not  be  lawful  fraudulently  or  violently  to  take  them  from  their 
parents,)  ought  to  be  baptized,  &c."  "  On  the  contrary,  the 
Helvetians  and  South  Hollanders,  concluded  that  the  infants  of 
ethnic  parents  ought  not  to  be  baptized  till  they  came  to  be  of 
years  to  declare  their  faith.  Their  chief  reason  was,  because 
Baptism  was  a  sign  of  the  covenant :  but  the  infants  of  ethnic 
parents  are  not  born  within  the  covenant,  and  therefore  they  can- 
not be  partakers  of  this  sign." — Hale's  Letters  from  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  p.  31.  The  English  Divines  were  Carlton,  Hall,  Ward, 
and  Davenant;  so  that  Mr.  Goode  must  have  misunderstood  the 
sentiments  of  the  last,  when  he  says  that  "  his  writings  clearly 
show  that  he  held  the  infants  of  believers  only  to  be  proper 
subjects  for    Baptism."      Of    the  opinion    entertained  by  the 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  97 

opposed  to  this  hypothesis.  No  doubt  those  who 
wrote  against  the  Anabaptists,  employed  what 
against  them  was  a  telling  argument,  that  if  the 
children  of  Christians  were  worthy  of  heaven,  they 
must  be- worthy  of  Baptism.  Mr.  Goode  has  re- 
ferred to  various  instances  of  this  argumentum  ad 
hominem;  forgetting  that  our  Church  employs  In- 
fant Baptism,  professedly  because  it  is  "most 
agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christ. "  Her 
intention,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  gathered  from 
what  may  have  been  adduced  as  conclusive 
against  a  particular  error,  but  from  the  laws  which 
regulate  her  general  conduct.  And  in  this  case 
we  may  appeal  to  Mr.  Goode's  own  practice. 
His  opinion  respecting  this  subject  accords  ex- 
actly with  that  of  Baxter:  but  whereas  he  main- 
tains that  such  a  view  is  allowed  by  the  Church, 
Baxter16  refused  to   subscribe,  on  the  professed 

Dutch  Calvinists  (as  well  as  by  Mr.  Goode,)  John  Hales 
observes  (Letters,  p.  43 :)  "  a  strange  decision,  and  such  as,  if 
my  memory  or  reading  fail  me  not,  no  Church,  either  ancient  or 
modern,  ever  gave.  When  it  was  objected,  What  if  they  were 
in  danger  of  death  1  Their  answer  was,  that  the  want  of  bap- 
tism would  not  prejudice  them  with  God,  except  we  would  de- 
termine as  the  Papists  do,  that  Baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation. 
Which  is  as  much  to  undervalue  the  necessity  of  Baptism,  as 
the  Church  of  Rome  does  overvalue  it."  This  is  a  wholly  dif- 
ferent case,  of  course,  from  the  Baptism  of  children  against  the 
will  of  their  parents,  which  was  always  discountenanced,  if  not 
positively  forbidden.  The  motive  in  this  case,  was  a  fear  of  the 
profanation  of  the  gift. —  Vide  Maskell  on  Holy  Baptism,  cap. 
xii.  p.  343. 

16  "For  the  new  clause  of  the  salvation  of  baptized  infants,  as 
certain  by  the  Word  of  God,  the  scruple  were  the  less,  if  it  were 
confined  to  the  Infants  of  true  believers.  But  our  Church  ad- 
mitteth  of  all  Infants,  even  of  Infidels  and  Heathens,  without 
distinction,  if  they  have  but  Godfathers  and  Godmothers;  and 
the  Canon  enforccth  ministers  to  baptize  them  all  without  ex- 

9 


98 

ground  that  the  Church  did  not  allow  it.  Now 
which  of  the  two  is  right  as  to  the  question  of 
fact?  Is  this  qualification  compatible  with  the 
Church's  laws?  Is  Mr.  Goode  able  to  act  upon 
it  in  his  own  Parish  ?  He  has  been  admitted  to 
his  benefice  after  promising  canonical  obedience. 
Suppose  an  infant  brought  to  his  Church,  whose 
parents  are  either  professed  infidels  or  live  in 
open  sin — will  he  refuse  to  baptize  it  ?  If  not, 
what  becomes  of  the  statement  that  the  consistent 
Christianity  of  the  Parents  is  a  necessary  qualifi- 
cation for  the  blessing  of  Baptism  ?  If  he  does, 
where  is  the  obedience  which  he  has  promised  to 
render  to  the  sixty-eighth  Canon17  of  the  Church 
of  England — a  Canon  which  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  would  not  fail  to  enforce  against  him,  as 
they  have  done  lately  against  others  ? 

But,  it  may  be  said,  this  would  be  the  harsh 
appeal  to  a  law,  which  when  lately  enforced  in  a 
much  harder  case  (that  of  denying  to  recognize 
schismatical  lay-baptism,)  excited  considerable 
murmurs.  Is  an  appeal  made,  then,  from  the  law, 


ception.  And  when  in  our  public  debate  with  the  Bishops,  I 
instanced  in  one  of  my  Parishioners  that  was  a  professed  Tnfidel, 
and  yet  said  he  would  come  and  make  the  common  profession 
for  his  child  for  custom  sake ;  even  Dr.  Sanderson,  the  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  answered  me  (and  none  of  the  Bishops  contradicted 
him,  but  some  seconded  him,)  that  if  there  were  Godfathers,  it 
had  a  sufficient  title,  which  Bishop  Morelcy  and  others  con- 
firmed."— Baxter's  Life,  part  ii.  p.  428. 

17  "  No  minister  shall  refuse  or  delay  to  christen  any  child 
according  to  the  form  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  that  is 
brought  to  the  Church  to  him  upon  Sundays  or  Holidays  to  be 

christened And  if  he  shall  refuse  to  christen  ....  he 

shall  be  suspended  by  the  Bishop  of  the  Dioccss  from  his  minis- 
try by  the  space  of  three  months." — Canon,  l::viii. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  99 

as  enforced  by  Jurists,  to  the  intention  of  those 
by  whom  our  formularies  were  constructed?  In 
the  case  before  us,  however,  Ave  have  full  informa- 
tion with  what  meaning  this  Rubric  was  con- 
structed ;  and  it  can  be  shown  to  have  been  framed 
with  the  view  of  excluding  the  very  interpretation 
which  is  put  upon  it.  The  Rubric  before  us  is 
one  of  those  which  owes  its  form  to  the  Commis- 
sioners who  conducted  the  Savoy  Conference. 
Mr.  Goode  is  very  desirous  to  deny  all  authority 
to  these  Commissioners,  and  observes  that  the 
formal  recognition  of  the  Prayer-Book  depended 
upon  Convocation  and  Parliament.  But  no  reason 
exists  for  supposing  that  the  Commissioners  did 
not  represent,  as  was  designed  and  supposed,  the 
predominant  opinion  of  the  Church ;  and  the 
record  of  their  intentions  is  not  invalidated,  be- 
cause Baxter  says,  that  the  published  Report  did 
not  do  justice  to  the  arguments  of  their  antago- 
nists. In  the  present  case  at  all  events  the  words 
introduced  into  the  Rubric  are  manifestly  theirs. 
For  they  occur  in  the  concessions  recommended 
by  the  Commissioners.13  If  the  meaning,  there- 
fore of  this  Rubric  is  to  be  gathered  from  the 
intention  with  which  it  was  devised,  we  must 
plainly  refer  to  their  arguments;  and  such  was 
obviously  the  feeling  of  Baxter,  a  most  competent 
witness  respecting  the  history  of  this  statement. 
When  it  was  maintained  that  men  might  subscribe 
to  the  Service-Book,  without  believing  that  all 
baptized  infants  were  brought  into  a  state  of  sal- 
vation, he  replied ;  "Your  consciences  must  tell 

18  CardwelL  Hist,  of  Conf.  p.  3G3. 


100 


you,  that  if  you  limit  it  to  some  only,  you  cross 
the  sense  of  the  compilers  of  the  Liturgy.  I  am 
sure  Dr.  Gunning,  who  brought  it  in,  hath  pub- 
licly expressed  his  sense  for  the  salvation  of  all 
such  Infants."19 

What  then,  according  to  their  own  explanation, 
wTas  the  intention  of  those  who  are  stated  to  have 
inserted  the  words,  "  dying  before  they  commit 
actual  sin  ?"  The  words  had  previously  stood,  "  it 
is  certain  by  God's  Word,  that  children  being  bap- 
tized have  all  things  necessary  for  their  salvation, 
and  be  undoubtedly  saved."  To  this  the  Presby- 
terians objected,  that  "  although  we  charitably 
suppose  the  meaning  of  these  words  was  only  to 
exclude  the  necessity  of  any  other  sacraments  to 
baptized  infants  ;  yet  these  words  are  dangerous  as 
to  the  misleading  of  the  vulgar,  and  therefore  we 
desire  that  they  may  be  expunged."20  To  which 
the  Bishops  replied  as  follows  :  "  It  is  evident  that 
the  meaning  of  these  words  is,  that  children  bap- 
tized and  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin  are 
undoubtedly  saved,  though  they  be  not  confirmed  : 
wherein  we  see  not  what  danger  there  can  be  of 
misleading  the  vulgar  by  teaching  them  truth. 
But  there  may  be  danger  in  this  desire  of  having 
these  words  expunged,  as  if  they  were  false  ;  for 
St.  Austin  says  he  is  an  infidel  that  denies  them 
to  be  true."-1  And  that  they  could  not  intend  to 
exclude  any  baptized  infants  from  the  benefit  of 
their  statement  is  still  further  shown  by  the  remark 
which  immediately  follows  on  one  of  the  Prayers  at 

19  Baxter's  Life  by  Sylvester,  P.  ii.  p.  428. 

20  Card  well,  p.  32*7. 

21  Ep.  23.  ad  Bonifac—  Cardwell,  p.  358. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  101 

Confirmation :  "  It  supposeth,  and  that  truly,  that 
all  infants  were  at  their  baptism  regenerate  by  water 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  had  given  unto  them  the 
forgiveness  of  all  their  sins." 

13 ut  perhaps  Mr.  Goode  may  observe  that 
though  this  Rubric  owes  its  form  to  the  Com- 
missioners at  the  Savoy  Conference,  yet  that  it 
was  only  a  modification  of  an  eailier  statement, 
which  occurred  in  King  Edward's  first  Prayer- 
Book.  Now,  have  we  any  clue  to  the  intention, 
with  which  it  was  originally  inserted  ?  King  Ed- 
ward's Prayer-Book  is  not  so  detailed  in  its  state- 
ments on  this  subject  as  to  supply  a  complete 
answer.  We  must  go  a  little  higher,  therefore, 
and  ask  what  the  usage  was,  which  it  tacitly 
adopted.  This  we  may  learn  even  from  the  form 
compiled  by  Bucer  and  Melancthon  for  Herman  of 
Cologne.  For  this  Service-Book  contains  an  ex- 
press provision  respecting  the  baptism  of  children 
whose  "  parents"  are  "  defiled  with  manifest  crimes 
and  abominations."  "  If  the  parents  be  found  in 
such  crimes,  they  shall  desire  their  kinsfolk  or  other 
friends,  which  be  as  yet  the  true  and  lively  members 
of  the  Church,  that  in  their  stead  they  will  ask 
baptism  for  their  infants."22  Now,  although  the 
first  English  Prayer-Book  does  not  so  expressly  con- 
tradict Mr.  Goode's  hypothesis,  yet  the  want  of  any 
provision  which  sanctions  it,  is  in  reality  equivalent 
to  its  denial.  That  children  were  rendered  incapa- 
ble of  the  benefits  of  Baptism  through  the  misconduct 
of  their  parents,  seems  never  to  have  entered  into 
men's  minds.  And,  therefore,  when  the  Presby- 
terians requested,  at  the  Savoy  Conference,  that  the 

2-  Fallow's  <•  Baptismal  Offices  Illustrated,"  p.  30. 

9* 


102 

Church's  words  might  receive  such  alterations  as 
might  render  them  susceptible  of  the  interpretation 
which  Mr.  Goode  at  present  assigns  to  them,  the 
Bishops  rejected  the  proposition  altogether,  as 
being  not  only  inconsistent  with  their  own  con- 
victions but  also  with  the  immemorial  usage  of  the 
English  Church.  "  There  beinor  divers  learned, 
pious,  and  peaceable  ministers,"  said  the  Presby- 
terian remonstrance,  "  who  not  only  judge  it  un- 
lawful to  baptize  children  whose  parents,  both  of 
them,  are  atheists,  infidels,  heretics,  or  unbaptized, 
but  also  such  whose  parents  are  excommunicated 
persons,  fornicators,  or  otherwise  notorious  and 
scandalous  sinners ;  we  desire  they  may  not  be 
enforced  to  baptize  the  children  of  such,  until  they 
have  made  due  profession  of  their  repentance."23 
In  this  wish  Mr.  Goode  must  plainly  coincide ; 
since  he  asserts  that  none  are  entitled  to  Baptism 
but  the  children  of  Christians,  none  partakers  of 
its  benefits  but  those  whose  parents  are  consistent 
Christians.  But  what  was  the  reply  of  those,  by 
whom  the  words  of  the  Church's  Rubric  were 
suggested  ?  u  We  think  this  desire  to  be  very  hard 
and  uncharitable,  punishing  the  poor  infants  for  the 
parents'  sakes,  and  giving  also  too  great  and  arbi- 
trary a  power  to  judge  which  of  his  parishioners  he 
pleaseth,  atheists,  infidels,  heretics,  &c. — and  then 
in  that  name  to  reject  their  children  from  being 
baptized.  Our  Church  concludes  more  charitably, 
that  Christ  will  favourably  accept  every  infant  to 
Baptism,  that  is  presented  by  the  Church  according 
to  our  present  order.  And  this  she  concludes  out 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  (as  you  may  see  in  the  office 

23  Cardwell,  p.  323 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  103 

of  Baptism,  1  according  to  the  practice  and  docrine 
of  the  Catholic  Church."3* 

If  the  words  of  the  Rubric,  then,  were  not  suf- 
ficient in  themselves,  the  argument  by  which  Mr. 
Goode  would  avoid  its  application  would  be  de- 
cisive against  him.  He  has  no  means  of  avoiding 
the  conclusion  that  the  Church  considers  all  bap- 
tized children  regenerate,  except  by  seeking  for  a 
discriminating  qualification  in  the  character  of 
the  parents.  And  this  involves  the  necessity  of 
his  not  only  contradicting  the  Church's  present 
laws,  but  of  his  opposing  the  avowed  intention  of 
those  who  enacted  them. 

It  has  been  shown,  then,  not  only  that  there  is 
no  authority  for  the  introduction  of  any  conditions, 
limiting  the  general  statements  used  in  the  Bap- 
tism of  Infants,  but  also  that  the  conditions  which 
have  been  suggested  are  in  themselves  utterly 
untenable.  To  introduce  conditions,  to  which 
there  is  no  allusion  in  the  Service,  would  in  itself 
be  to  pervert  the  meaning  of  words ;  and  the 
sense  which  they  introduce  is  incompatible  with 
the  Church's  statement  that  adult  Catechumens  are 
not  regenerate,  and  with  her  different  mode  of 
dealing  with  baptized  and  unbaptized  infants.  In- 
somuch, that  the  objections  to  this  doctrine  are 
not  founded  upon  the  words  of  the  Service,  which 
are  allowed  even  by  opponents  to  "favour"  it, 
but  upon  external  difficulties.  There  is  one  pas- 
sage, however  in  the  Catechism,  to  which  the 
opponents  of  baptismal  regeneration  have  often 

2t"Cpr.  Ep.  59.  Aug.  Ep.  xxviii.  et  de  verb.  Apost.  Serm. 
xiv.  Cardvvell,"  p.  355. 


104 

referred,  as  contenancing  their  hypothesis.  "This 
passage,"  says  Mr.  Goode,  "  directly  opposes  the 
notion,  that  the  full  baptismal  blessing  is  necessa- 
rily conferred  upon  all  infants.  For  not  only  is  it 
said  that  '  repentance  and  faith'  are  necessary  in 
an  adult  coming  to  Baptism,  in  order  that  he  may 
profit  by  it,  but  in  answer  to  the  question,  '  why, 
then  are  infants  baptized,  when,  by  reason  of  their 
tender  age,  they  cannot  perform  them,'  the  reply 
is,  '  because  they  promise  them  both  by  their  sure- 
ties, which  promise  when  they  come  to  age,  them- 
selves are  bound  to  perform.'  Here,  then,  at  once 
is  a  limitation  to  the  'wholesome  effect'  of  Baptism 
in  infants."  This  passage,  then,  is  supposed  to 
recognize,  as  an  necessary  condition  for  efficacious 
Baptism,  "  the  prevision  by  God  of  future  faith 
and  repentance."  And  Mr.  Scott  considers  it  so 
important,  that  he  speaks  of  it  "as  the  true  key  to 
the  meaning  of  the  Church  in  the  language  which 
she  uses  concerning  infants.25  Now  even  if  this 
passage  had  been  intended  to  produce  such  an 
effect,  it  could  not  neutralize  those  earlier  state- 
ments of  the  Church,  to  which  it  was  added  after 
the  Hampton  Conference.  For  the  interpretation 
which  would  represent  it  as  a  key  to  the  Church's 
meaning,  would  make  our  Church's  words  wholly 
Pelagian  in  their  tendency,  since  it  would  rest 
God's  first  act  of  favour  upon  something  which 
He  sees  in  men,  and  not  on  His  own  free  mercy. 
It  would  represent  Him  as  bestowing  His  gifts 
where  He  sees  men  to  be  such,  that  they  will 
respond  to  His  favours.    Whereas,  as  the  Council 

25  Scott's  Inquiry,  p.  M6. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  105 

of  Orange50  expresses  it,  God's  favour  towards  us  is 
founded  on  what  we  become  after  we  have  received 
His  gifts,  not  on  what  we  are  before  we  have  re- 
ceived them.  His  previous  love  must  not  be  re- 
ferred at  all  to  our  deserts,  but  wholly  to  His  free 
favour.  Now,  to  suppose  that  a  gift  is  offered  to 
all  infants,  but  that  it  is  only  bestowed  on  those 
who  are  seen  to  be  about  to  use  it,  is  to  rest  the 
discriminating  condition  upon  the  recipient's  ex- 
cellence. And  this  is  a  notion  which  is  not  only 
opposed  to  the  whole  teaching  of  the  Church,  but 
has  been  condemned  in  the  strongest  terms  by 
Bishop  Overall,  to  whom  the  conclusion  of  the 
Catechism  is  attributed.  "The  two  views,  either 
of  an  absolute  decree  on  the  part  of  God,  or  of  a 
prevision  of  man's  co-operation  .  .  .  are  wholly  to 
be  rejected."27  To  found  any  such  inference, 
then,  on  these  words,  would  be  utterly  inadmis- 
sible ;  and  yet,  since  they  are  the  only  words  in 
the  Prayer-Book  which  have  been  adduced  with 
any  show  of  plausibility,  it  is  needful  to  examine 
them. 

The  practice  of  requiring  sponsors  at  Baptism  is 
of  ancient  date.  What  purpose  was  it  intended  to 
answer  ?  The  relations  in  which  men  may  stand 
towards  one  another  are  plainly  of  two  kinds,  some 
depending  on  the  will  of  the  parties,  others  on 
their  duties.  Friendship  is  a  relation  of  the  first 
kind  ;  allegiance,  of  the  second.      Men  are  not 

2(3  "  Talcs  nos  amat  Deus  quales  futuri  sumus  ipsius  dono,  non 
quales  sumus  nostro  merito." — Harduin,  ii.  1099. 

27  "  Pra;stantium  Epistolae  Theological."  Amsterdam,  1704, 
No.  210,  p.  353.  This  subject  is  considered  at  large  in  the  5th 
chapter. 


106 


friends  longer  than  they  desire  to  be  so  :  alle- 
giance is  a  coercive  yoke,  of  which  the  laws  will 
not  allow  them  to  divest  themselves.  Now,  when 
a  man  is  proxy  for  his  neighbour,  it  is  plain  that 
he  cannot  undertake  those  relations  which  result 
from  will,  unless  he  acts  by  his  neighbour's  con- 
sent; but  in  respect  of  those  relations  which  are 
imposed  upon  his  neighbour  by  law,  the  same 
law  may  authorize  him  to  act  on  his  neighbour's 
behalf.  This  is  seen  in  the  guardianship  of 
children.  No  guardian  can  undertake  to  prog- 
nosticate what  will  hereafter  be  the  inclination  of 
his  infant  ward  ;  but  so  far  as  the  law  gives  him 
power  over  his  ward's  property,  he  can  act  with 
confidence  on  his  behalf.  Now,  the  same  prin- 
ciple which  is  applicable  to  things  earthly,  may 
be  employed  in  estimating  our  relations  to  God. 
For  we  came  into  the  world  owing  an  allegiance 
to  our  Heavenly  Sovereign,  which  the  eternal 
laws  of  duty  forbid  us  to  neglect.  The  discharge 
of  this  allegiance  in  riper  years  implies  the  active 
exercise  of  faith  and  penitence.  But  during  the 
season  of  infancy,  while  the  voluntary  powers  are 
in  abeyance,  this  allegiance  can  be  nothing  more 
than  a  duty,  which  has  been  contracted  by  the 
accident  of  our  birth.  For  it  is  fast  bound  to 
that  general  nature,  of  which  every  child  of  Adam 
is  an  individual  type. 

When  a  man  is  proxy,  therefore,  for  an  infant 
towards  God,  it  is  not  "  as  if  the  soul  of  the  child 
were  considered  as  transferred  to  his  sponsors"-3 
(as  Mr.  Scott  at  one  time   viewed  the   matter.) 

28  Scott's  Inquiry,  p.  HO. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  107 

Such  a  transfer  of  souls  is  impossible  in  the 
nature  of  the  case:  "for  no  man  may  deliver  his 
brother,  nor  make  agreement  unto  God  for  him." 
The  only  relations  which  the  proxy  can  under- 
take are  those  which  some  law  assigns  him :  not 
the  voluntary  ones,  inseparable  from  the  account- 
ableness  of  the  individual,  but  those  responsibili- 
ties which  he  has  incurred  as  an  heir  of  nature. 
Now  this  exercise  of  the  proxy's  duty  the  Cate- 
chism explains.  Laying  down  faith  and  repent- 
ance as  the  general  requirements  on  the  part  of 
man,  it  proceeds  to  show  how  far  children  can 
discharge  them.  Its  office,  as  a  manual  of  prac- 
tical instruction  for  the  young,  is  not,  as  Mr. 
Goode  seems  to  imagine,  to  defend  infant  baptism, 
but  to  show  its  relation  to  the  general  scheme  of 
Scripture  doctrine.  And  therefore  it  states  in 
wThat  manner  these  conditions  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance can  be  complied  with  by  infants.  As 
respects  their  voluntary  fulfilment,  they  cannot  as 
yet  be  performed  in  any  wise,  but  they  do  not 
the  less  exist  as  an  obligation,  inseparable  from 
man's  nature.  And  therefore  the  same  law, 
wrhich  imposes  them  upon  children,  gives  their 
guardians  authority  to  make  public  acknowledg- 
ment of  them.  So  that  in  the  only  sense  in 
which  infants  can  at  all  act  by  proxy — the  con- 
tracting, that  is,  of  obligations,  the  performance 
whereof  some  external  law  will  hereafter  enforce 
upon  them — they  can  and  do  perform  the  require- 
ments which  are  necessary  for  Baptism.  And 
this  it  is  which  the  words  of  the  Catechism  de- 
clared, as  they  were  originally  penned  by  Bishop 
Overall.       "  Why,    then,    are    infants   baptized, 


108 

when,  by  reason  of  their  tender  age,  they  cannot 
perform  them  ?  Yes,  they  do  perform  them  by 
their  sureties,  who  promise  and  vow  them  both 
in  their  names ;  which,  when  they  come  to  age, 
themselves  are  bound  to  perform."  Had  the 
words  remained,  therefore,  as  at  first  written,  they 
would  have  afforded  no  opening  for  the  idea  that 
baptismal  grace  was  contingent  on  men's  future 
conduct.  For  the  wor'ds  spoke  of  something 
which  was  then  and  there  performed  by  the 
infant,  through  his  sponsors'  intervention:  and 
that  which  a  proxy  can  effect  for  an  infant  is  not 
the  prognostication  of  his  uncertain  will,  but  the 
confession  of  his  unquestionable  duty. 

But,  it  may  be  said,  Bishop  Overall's  original 
intention  was  abandoned  at  the  Savoy  Confer- 
ence. Happily,  however,  we  have  direct  testi- 
mony why  his  words  were  altered,  and  what  was 
the  intention  of  those  who  altered  them.  And 
since  the  present  words  of  our  Catechism  were 
actually  suggested  by  the  Bishops  who  conducted 
the  Conference,  their  interpretation  of  their  own 
meaning  is  decisive.  The  words  of  Bishop  Overall 
were  suggested  by  the  Presbyterians  to  be  open  to 
such  misconception,  as  Mr.  Goode  has  been  shown 
to  entertain  respecting  those  of  Luther.  It  might 
be  supposed,  they  said,  that  an  act  of  repentance 
and  faith  really  took  place  in  the  minds  of  in- 
fants ;  and  not  merely  that  they  were  admitted  in 
consequence  of  Christ's  appointment,  and  thereby 
incurred  an  obligation  to  the  exercise  of  that  faith 
and  repentance,  without  which  the  full  advantages 
of  this  sacred  rite  could  not  be  enjoyed.  That 
this  was  the  objection  made  by  the  Presbyterian 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  109 

party,  and  that  the  Bishops  did  not  design  by 
their  concession  to  admit  a  mere  hypothetical  view 
of  regeneration,  is  apparent  from  their  own  words. 
The  former  party  said,  by  way  of  objection  to  the 
Catechism  as  it  previously  existed,  "  We  desire 
that  the  entering  infants  into  God's  covenant  may 
be  more  warily  expressed  ;  and  that  the  words 
may  not  seem  to  found  their  baptism  upon  a  really 
actual  faith  and  repentance  of  their  own  ;  and  we 
desire  that  a  promise  may  not  be  taken  for  a  per- 
formance of  such  faith  and  repentance  ;  and  espe- 
cially that  it  be  not  asserted,  that  they  perform 
these  by  the  promise  of  their  sureties,  it  being  to 
the  seed  of  believers  that  the  covenant  of  God  is 
made  ;  and  not,  that  we  can  find,  to  all  that  have 
such  believing  sureties,  who  are  neither  parents 
nor  pro-parents  of  the  child."29  To  this  the 
Bishops  replied  :  "  The  effect  of  children's  bap- 
tism depends  neither  upon  their  own  present  actual 
faith  and  repentance  (which  the  Catechism  says 
expressly  they  cannot  perform,)  nor  upon  the  faith 
and  repentance  of  their  natural  parents  or  pro- 
parents,  or  of  their  godfathers  or  godmothers;  but 
upon  the  ordinance  and  institution  of  Christ.  But 
it  is  requisite  that  when  they  come  to  age  they 
should  perform  these  conditions  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance, for  which,  also,  their  godfathers  and 
godmothers  charitably  undertook  on  their  be- 
half."* 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  those  who  re-moulded 
the  language  of  the  Catechism  at  the  Savoy  Con- 
ference, had  no  intention  of  relinquishing  theprin- 

29  Cardwell's  "  History  of  Co«ferejices,"  p.  327. 

30  CardwcII,  p.  357. 

10 


110  THE    CHURCH'S    ESTIMATE 

ciple  which  Bishop  Overall  had  originally  express- 
ed. For  here  were  two  theories — first,  that  the 
spiritual  effect  of  Baptism  in  the  case  of  infants 
depended  entirely  on  Christ's  institution,  and  not 
on  any  qualifications  of  which  they  were  pos- 
sessed ;  secondly,  that  certain  qualifications  were 
needed  on  their  part,  either  the  qualification  of  a 
present,  active  faith  and  repentance,  which  is  the 
theory  which  has  been  erroneously  attributed  to 
Luther,  or  else  the  qualification  of  excellence  on 
the  part  of  their  parents  and  sponsors.  Now  the 
Bishops  plainly  affirm  the  first  of  these  two 
theories,  and  deny  the  second.  "The  effect  of 
children's  Baptism,"  they  say,  "  depends  neither 
upon  their  own  present  actual  faith,  nor  upon  the 
faith  of  their  parents  or  godfathers."  The  second 
of  these  qualifications  indeed,  the  faith  of  their 
God-parents,  was  sufficiently  excluded  by  Bishop 
Overall's  words;  but  the  other  qualification,  the 
actual  faith  of  the  children,  might  seem  to  be  re- 
cognized :  the  intention,  therefore,  of  the  Bishops, 
was  to  turn  the  force  of  the  answer  against  the 
last  qualification,  not  to  let  in  the  former.  They 
had  no  intention  of  abandoning  the  truth,  that  the 
Baptism  of  infants  rested  entirely  upon  the  insti- 
tution of  Christ,  but  they  were  willing  to  guard 
more  effectually  against  giving  countenance  to 
the  Anabaptist  notion,  that  an  actual  present  faith 
was  always  required.  And  that  such  was  their 
feeling,  is  manifest  from  the  words  which  they 
had  used  just  before  :  "  Seeing  that  God's  sacra- 
ments have  their  effects,  where  the  receiver  doth 
not  "  ponere  obicem,"  put  any  bar  against  them 
(which  children  cannot  do ;)  we  may  say  in  faith 


OF  HOLY    BAPTISM.  Ill 

of  every  child  that  is  baptized,  that  it  is  regene- 
rated by  God's  Holy  Spirit:  and  the  denial  of  it 
tends  to  Anabaptism,  and  the  contempt  of  this 
Holy  Sacrament,  as  nothing  worthy,  nor  material 
whether  it  be  administered  to  children  or  no."31 

And  here  perhaps  it  may  be  objected  that  the 
intention  of  the  Church's  rulers  in  the  year  1661, 
cannot  be  doubted,  but  that  they  may  have  been 
overruled  by  God's  Providence  or  by  fear  of 
others,  and  may  have  adopted  language,  which 
themselves  did  not  believe.  The  supposition  is 
wholly  visionary,  since  their  own  party  was  so 
plainly  in  the  ascendant,  that  such  a  course  was 
as  unnecessary  as  it  would  have  been  dishonest. 
Such,  indeed,  is  the  conclusion,  which  those  who 
follow  Mr.  Goode  must  adopt  respecting  the 
original  compilers  of  our  Service-Book,  and  upon 
it  rests  the  opinion  that  its  general  promises  are 
to  be  limited  by  some  secret  condition,  which 
wTas  present  to  their  minds.  But  even  if  the 
Caroline  Bishops  could  have  designed  in  this 
way  to  admit  sentiments,  which  they  did  not 
shrink  from  publicly  denying,  yet  would  this  ad- 
mission be  wholly  ineffectual,  so  long  as  it  was 
undone  by  those  acts  of  the  Church,  in  which 
they  made  no  alteration.  For  let  it  be  admitted 
that  the  efficacy  of  Baptism  in  the  case  of  infants 
depends  not,  as  the  Bishops  asserted,  on  the  in- 
stitution of  Christ,  but  on  some  qualification  de- 
rived from  the  piety  of  their  sponsors,  or  on  their 
own  fulfilment  of  baptismal  vows.  In  this  case 
the  act  of  the  sponsors  becomes  essential  to  the 

31  Card  well,  p.  356. 


112  THE    CHURCH'S   ESTIMATE 

validity  of  the  ordinance.  If  that  which  is  stated 
respecting  them  is  the  key  to  all  the  Church's 
language,  that  which  they  do,  becomes  the  criti- 
cal circumstance  on  which  rests  the  weight  of 
the  Sacrament.  But  how  does  this  consist  with 
the  fact,  that  sponsorship,  though  a  fitting  and 
useful  adjunct,  is  not  essential  to  Baptism  at  all  ? 
Private  Baptism  is  administered  without  it.  The 
Puritans  would  fain  have  put  a  stop  to  this. 
"We  desire,"  they  say,  "that  Baptism  may  not 
be  administered  in  a  private  place."  "And  so 
do  we,"  the  Bishops  replied,  "  where  it  may  be 
brought  into  the  public  congregation.  But  since 
Our  Lord  hath  said,  'unless  one  be  born  of 
water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  we  think  if  fit  that  they 
should  be  baptized  in  private,  rather  than  not  at 
all."33  Here,  then,  is  an  act  on  the  Church's  part 
which  decides  beyond  contradiction  the  meaning 
of  her  expressions.  A  promise  is  made,  and  most 
properly,  at  Baptism,  to  express  the  obligations 
which  the  child  contracts  at  that  Holy  Ordinance. 
Unless  this  promise  be  remembered  and  appre- 
ciated, the  full  prospective  benefits  of  Baptism 
cannot  be  appreciated.  But  there  is  also  an  im- 
mediate effect  attendant  on  Baptism,  irrespective 
of  its  future  relation  to  the  responsible  under- 
standing of  the  child  :  and  this  elfect  depends  on 
Christ's  institution,  and  not  on  the  piety  of 
parents  and  sponsors.  And  that  it  does  so,  is 
made  abundantly  manifest  by  the  Church,  be- 
cause she  requires  that  infants  should  be  baptized 

^  Cardwcll,  p.  35G. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  113 

even   when  parents    are    not  pious,   and   where 
sponsors  cannot  be  obtained. 

But  the  expression  which  has  been  cited  is  by 
no  means  the  only  one  in  the  Catechism  which 
treats  of  Baptism.  The  Catechism  contains  vari- 
ous statements  which  are  designed  to  teach  child- 
ren the  nature  of  those  obligations  which  they 
have  contracted.  And  considering  the  singleness 
of  heart,  and  the  ready  credence  which  marks 
that  age,  the  expressions  which  are  designed  for 
it  are  likely  to  be  distinguished  for  their  simplicity 
and  plainness.  The  divines  at  the  Savoy  state 
that  the  Catechism  "being  short,  is  fitted  for 
children  and  common  people  ;"  and  the  original 
design  of  its  concluding  portion,  as  suggested  at 
the  Hampton  Conference,  was  to  adopt  "the  few- 
est and  plainest  affirmative  terms  that  may  be." 
It  might  be  expected,  therefore,  that  no  question 
could  be  raised  what  it  was,  w7hich  a  child  was 
designed  to  learn  when  it  was  taught  to  say,  that 
"in  Baptism"  I  was  "made  a  member  of  Christ, 
the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven:"  or  again,  when  it  was  instructed  to 
declare  that  it  had  been  "  called  to  this  state  of 
salvation  ;"  that  "  the  Holy  Ghost  sanctifieth  me 
and  all  the  elect  people  of  God  ;"  and,  finally, 
that  "  we  are  hereby  made  the  children  of  grace." 
Mr.  Goode,  accordingly,  does  not  scruple  to  ex- 
press his  disapprobation  of  the  whole  system  of 
instruction,  which  is  conveyed  on  this  subject 
in  the  Catechism  ;  though  his  vow  of  canonical 
obedience  obliges  him  to  employ  it  in  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  young.  But  how  can  he  bring  himself 
to  use  it  at  all?  After  referring  to  other  Cate- 
10* 


114  Till 

chisms,  which  he  parallels  wth  our  own,  he  states 
the  principle  on  which  he  conceives  that  formu- 
laries of  this  sort  were  designed  to  be  understood 
by  their  authors.  "No  doubt  they  hoped  that 
such  language  might  lead  the  sinner  to  reflection 
and  repentance,  when  he  felt  its  unsidtability  to 
his  state."33  I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  the 
unmixed  regret  with  which  I  have  read  this  part 
of  Mr.  Goode's  volume.  What  a  portent  it  is, 
that  one  who  has  been  put  in  trust  with  the  care 
of  souls — who  has  bound  himself  by  vow  to  teach 
that  simple  form  of  truth  which  is  said  to  be 
"  fitted  for  children  and  common  people" — should 
suppose  the  Spouse  of  Christ  to  be  such  a  "cap- 
tious sophister,"  that  she  can  put  deceptive  words 
into  the  mouths  of  these  tender  and  confiding 
learners,  and  that  she  expects  them  to  find  out 
that  when  she  says  one  thing  she  means  another. 
"  What  man  is  there  of  you,  whom  if  his  son  ask 
bread,  will  he  give  him  a  stone?  Or  if  he  ask  a 
fish  will  he  give  him  a  serpent  ?"  And  can  it  be 
believed  that  the  Church  would  put  ironical 
words  into  the  mouths  of  Christ's  little  ones? 
Is  this  her  mode  of  treating  those  "new-born 
babes,  who  desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  Word  ? 
And  what  result  but  unbelief  can  be  expected  in 
riper  years,  if  the  simplicity  of  childhood  is  thus 
to  be  bewildered  by  a  text  which  holds  one  doc- 
trine, and  a  commentator  who  holds  the  contrary 
— by  a  catechism  which  affirms  that  they  are  re- 
generate and  a  catechiser  who  affirms  that  they 
are  not  ? 

33  u  ]\,[y  own  view,"  he  spys,  «  would  be  adverse  to  the  use  of 
such  language."  &c. 


OF    HOLY    BAPTISM.  115 

And  now  one  word  in  conclusion.  I  have  no 
wish  to  attribute  dishonesty  to  those,  who  do  not 
read  the  formularies  of  the  English  Church  with 
the  same  eyes  as  myself.  The  understanding  of 
man  is  so  defective  an  instrument  for  ascertaining 
truth,  our  wishes  so  greatly  influence  our  conclu- 
sions, that  such  charges  are  unreasonable  as  well 
as  unchristian.  Yet  I  would  wish  those  who 
think  that  the  Church  of  England  does  not  hold  the 
doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration,  to  consider 
one  circumstance.  Of  those  who  are  called  Christ- 
ians, the  larger  part  profess,  while  at  the  same 
time  not  a  few  deny,  this  doctrine.  But  while 
every  variety  of  opinion  prevails  respecting  the 
doctrine  itself,  there  is  one  point  on  which  all 
parties  but  ourselves  are  unanimous.  Roman 
Catholics,  Dissenters,  Infidels,  answer  with  one 
voice,  that  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration 
is  plainly  affirmed  in  the  formularies  of  the  Church 
of  England.  On  this  head  alone,  are  those  who 
reject  the  doctrine  and  those  who  accept  it,  ac- 
cordant. The  only  intelligent  beings  wrho  pro- 
fess to  think  otherwise,  are  those,  who  combine 
the  rejection  of  this  doctrine  wTith  the  acceptance 
of  those  formularies,  in  which  all  uninterested 
parties  suppose  it  to  be  expressed.  Surely  this 
universal  consent  should  lead  earnest  minds  to  a 
serious  and  dispassionate  consideration  of  so 
singular  a  phenomenon.  For  that  to  force  the 
judgment  into  an  opinion  which  it  resists,  has 
occasionally  been  found  to  be  the  only  means  of 
maintaining  the  singular  position  which  has  been 
described,  we  know  from  the  candid  avowal  of 
one  who  has   abandoned  it.     "I  once   laboured 


116  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

hard,"  says  Mr.  Baptist  Noel,  "to  convince  ray- 
self  that  our  Reformers  did  not,  and  could  not 
mean  that  infants  are  regenerated  by  baptism  ; 
but  no  reasoning  avails.  This  language  is  too 
plain."  "  The  Prayer-Book  assumes  clearly,  that 
both  adults  and  infants  come  to  the  font  unregene- 
rate,  and  leave  it  regenerated  ;  that  worihy  recipi- 
ents of  Baptism  are  not  regenerate  before  Baptism, 
but  come  to  be  regenerated;  that  they  are  unpar- 
doned up  to  the  moment  of  Baptism,  that  they 
are  pardoned  the  moment  after."34 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION  OF 
PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE. 

In  the  first  Chapter  of  this  work  Regeneration 
was  stated  to  be  that  act,  whereby  Christ  takes 
up  His  dwelling  in  mankind  ;  the  putting  on, 
that  is,  of  the  New  Man.  It  was  next  affirmed, 
on  the  authority  of  God's  revealed  Word,  that  in 
the  case  of  those  whose  unbelief  does  not  deprive 
them  of  such  blessedness,  this  divine  work  is 
effected  in  Holy  Baptism.  That  such  is  the  teach- 
ing of  our  Church,  it  has  been  shown  out  of  its 
authorized  formularies.  I  now  come  to  a  subject 
of  no  little  moment,  by  which  the  English  mind 
is  sure  to  be  greatly  affected — the  practical  im- 
portance   of  the    doctrine.     Is    the  question  of 

34  "  Essay  on  Church  and  State,"  p.  419. 


OF   BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  117 

Baptismal  Regeneration  of  any  great  practical 
moment  ?  It  has  sometimes  been  maintained, 
that  though  this  doctrine  ought  to  be  admitted, 
because  it  is  revealed  in  Scripture  and  taught  by 
the  Church,  vet  that  it  exercises  no  serious  influ- 


ence, and  that  those  who  reject  it  are  rather  in- 
accurate in  their  expressions  than  heretical  in 
their  thoughts.  It  can  have  no  place,  it  is  said, 
in  the  practical  teaching  of  earnest  men  :  those 
who  are  careless  need  to  be  awakened,  and  those 
who  are  devout  need  to  advance  ;  what  use  is  it, 
then,  to  think  about  the  stages  which  have  been 
already  traversed  either  by  the  one  or  the  other  ? 
Yet  if  this  were  so,  why  should  so  many  volumes 
have  been  expended  upon  the  subject,  and  how 
unmeaning  have  been  all  the  deadly  disputes  to 
which  it  has  given  occasion?  It  could  hardly 
have  been  the  great  battle-field,  in  which  oppo- 
site opinions  have  uniformly  come  into  collision, 
unless  it  exercised  some  real  and  important  influ- 
ence upon  the  progress  of  religious  thought. 

To  do  justice,  then,  to  this  subject,  it  will  be 
well  to  inquire,  first,  why  Baptismal  Regeneration 
has  been  so  vehemently  opposed  by  its  antago- 
nists;  and  why  its  supporters  have  looked  upon 
it  as  the  keystone  of  their  position. 

The  opposition  to  Baptismal  Regeneration  on 
the  part  of  earnest  men,  seems  to  have  arisen 
mainly  from  a  fear  lest  it  should  do  away  with 
the  necessity,  or  detract  from  the  importance  of 
conversion.  I  will  not  enter  into  controversy, 
says  Mr.  Scott,  with  persons  who  believe  that 
those  who  have  neglected  their  baptismal  vows, 
"do  still  need  that  great  and  radical  change,  on 


118  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE. 

which  the  Scriptures  insist."1  And  even  Mr 
Goode  allows  that  "  when  the  distinction  is  pre 
served  between  this  infantine  regeneration  and 
that  regeneration  of  heart,  which  is  necessary  for 
the  salvation  of  an  adult,  then  (whether  or  not  we 
agree  in  the  view  taken)  it  seems  very  unneces- 
sary to  raise  a  further  controversy."  Now,  had 
these  and  other  writers  always  kept  this  truth  be- 
fore them,  a  large  part  of  the  distrust  and  hostility 
which  the  subject  has  excited,  might  probably 
have  been  avoided.  Their  feeling  plainly  was, 
that  the  importance  of  a  change  of  character  had 
not  been  duly  remembered,  that  Regeneration 
had  too  often  been  spoken  of  as  a  mere  technical, 
official  process  ;  and  thus  has  man's  salvation 
been  rested  only  on  his  external  profession,  and 
not  on  any  real  alteration  of  the  heart.  Against 
such  an  error  it  was  impossible  to  protest  too 
strongly.  But  unfortunately,  in  their  earnestness 
to  resist  falsehood,  men  have  sometimes  sacrificed 
truth ;  they  have  supposed  it  impossible  to  exalt 
regeneration,  unless  at  the  same  time  they  dis- 
paraged Baptism.  Thus  does  Mr.  Scott  refer,  as 
though  it  were  an  admitted  truth,  to  the  opinion 
that  if  Our  Lord's  statement  respecting  the  New 
Birth,  in  the  third  chapter  of  St.  John,  "  relate  to 
Baptism  or  what  necessarily  or  inseparably  ac- 
companies Baptism,  then  it  means  nothing  to  us 
who  have  received  Baptism."*  Yet  no  words  can 
possibly  be  more  opposed  to  the  opinions  of  those 
who  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  baptismal  grace. 
This  misdirection  in  the  efforts  of  those  who  de- 

1  "  Reply  to  Laurence,"  p  147.  2  Inquiry,  p.  33. 


OF  BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  119. 

sired  to  vindicate  the  importance  of  regeneration, 
has  involved  a  corresponding  re-action  on  the  part 
of  some  who  were  jealous  for  the  honour  of  Holy 
Baptism.  Insomuch  that  it  was  supposed  at  one 
time,  that  a  man  could  not  have  a  due  apprecia- 
tion of  the  one,  if  he  was  disposed  to  do  hearty 
justice  to  the  other.  No  one  can  pretend  to  say 
how  far  his  own  feelings  on  the  subject  may  result 
from  that  early  association,  which  has  happily 
taught  him  to  believe  in  the  reality  of  spiritual 
gifts,  and  yet  to  reverence  God's  appointed  ordi- 
nances;  but  the  present  writer  cannot  refrain  from 
saying  that  he  has  met  with  no  statements  from 
any  of  our  approved  writers,  either  of  the  reality 
of  regeneration,  or  of  the  efficacy  of  Baptism,  with 
which  he  does  not  heartily  concur.  It  is  stated 
on  the  one  side  that  regeneration  is  a*  change  of 
heart,  not  of  circumstances — that  its  influence  ex- 
tends to  the  whole  life — that  it  is  a  divine  work 
wrought  in  man  by  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost — all  this,  and  whatever  else  of  a  si- 
milar kind  can  be  thought  of,  he  not  only  admits, 
but  most  strongly  maintains.  For  what  truth  can 
be  of  graver  importance  ?  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  Baptism  is  a  real  participation  of  Christ's  na- 
ture, that  all  baptized  infants  are  translated  from 
death  to  life,  and  are  made  members  by  grace  of 
the  New,  as  by  birth  they  were  portions  of  the  old 
Adam — this,  likewise  is  revealed  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. Let  the  two  parties,  then,  keep  to  the  posi- 
tive enunciation  of  their  own  principles,  and  they 
cannot  go  too  far  in  their  assertions.  It  is  only 
when  they  pass  into  one  another's  ground  ;  when 
the  one  party  disparages  Baptism,  and  the  other 


120  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

explains  away  Regeneration,  that  the  desire  oi 
opposing  error  leads  them  away  from  truth. 

Now  this  seems  to  have  given  rise  to  the  pre- 
valent opinion,  that  belief  in  Baptismal  Regene- 
ration is  inconsistent  with  a  due  appreciation  of  the 
doctrine  of  conversion.  Yet  if  the  nature  of  the 
two  processes  be  considered,  this  fancied  opposi- 
tion will  vanish  at  once.  Regeneration  is  that  work, 
whereby  God  renews,  man's  nature.  Its  imme- 
diate process  is  the  substitution  of  that  new  nature, 
which  has  been  re-constructed  in  Christ,  for  that 
old  nature  which  was  corrupted  in  Adam.  That 
the  process  thus  mercifully  provided  for  our  re- 
covery reaches  to  the  wThole  man — that  no  partot 
him  is  untouched  by  that  renewing  power  of 
grace,  which  has  its  source  in  God's  love,  and  its 
channel  in  the  Manhood  of  the  Mediator — is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  truth,  that  in  man  resides  a 
power  of  will,  which  must  yield  to  the  suasion  of 
these  better  principles.  The  process  whereby  the 
will  makes  this  surrender  is  conversion.  Look 
at  the  motive  principle  by  which  the  will  is  swayed 
to  good,  and  it  is  God's  grace  ;  look  to  the  action 
itself,  and  it  is  man's  faith  and  repentance. 
Whether  this  process  takes  place  early  or  late, 
with  the  first  dawnings  of  reason  or  in  the  last 
hour  of  its  possession,  it  is  plain  that  the  corrupt 
will  which  opposes  and  prevents  it,  is  incompa- 
tible with  the  state  of  grace.  But  what  reason  is 
there  why  a  jealous  regard  for  this  truth  should 
blind  men  to  the  reality  of  those  gifts,  with  which 
the  Mediator  has  enriched  His  saving  ordinances? 

There  is  no  reason,  then,  for  denying  Baptismal 
Regeneration,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  incompatible 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  121 

with  the  doctrine  of  conversion.  But  is  its  asser- 
tion of  any  practical  importance  ?  For  if  it  be  a 
technical  dogma,  and  is  needed  only  to  complete  a 
theological  system,  without  exercising  influence 
over  men's  lives,  it  were  useless  to  trouble  our- 
selves with  its  defence  ?  Nor  would  there  be 
much  interest  in  the  task,  were  it  the  main  object 
of  this  doctrine,  as  seems  to  have  been  thought  in 
the  last  century,  to  repress  that  irregular  enthusiasm 
which  might  otherwise  overflow  the  established 
limits  of  orthodoxy.  But  it  is  a  very  different  con- 
sideration, and  of  far  higher  interest,  that  upon  it 
depends  so  large  a  part  of  the  responsibility  of  man- 
kind. For  what  single  circumstance  is  more  fraught 
with  practical  consequences,  than  that  it  has  pleased 
God  to  bestow  grace,  for  which  men  are  respon- 
sible ?  What  has  more  contributed  to  the  neglect 
of  Gospel  blessings,  than  that  parents  have  forgot- 
ten to  warn  their  children,  that  they  must  answer 
for  the  gifts  which  they  have  already  received  ?  For 
in  truth,  Christian  education  is  based  entirely  upon 
a  belief  in  Baptismal  grace.  It  does  not  appear 
how  Christian  education  can  be  generally  given  on 
any  other  hypothesis,  without  implying  the  error  of 
Pelagianism.  For  is  it  not  its  essence  that  educa- 
tion is  to  precede  improvement  ?  Does  it  not  begin 
by  assuming  principles,  which  are  not  yet  exhibited  ? 
Does  it  not  accustom  the  infant  tongue  to  the  accents 
of  prayer  and  praise,  before  it  can  be  ascertained 
how  far  the  mind  receives  them  ?  And  is  not  this 
to  sssume  that  all  Christian  children  have  received 
a  measure  of  grace  ?  Yet  we  have  no  ground  for 
supposing  such  a  gift  to  have  been  bestowed  upon 
our  little  ones,  unless  we  have  brought  them  to 
11 


122  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

Christ.3  Zuinglius,  therefore,  and  those  who  agreed 
with  him,  were  driven  to  deny  that  the  children  of 
Christians  were  in  reality  born  in  original  sin  ;4  and 
Mr.  Goode  on  the  other  hand  disapproves  of  the 
mode  in  which  the  Catechism  addresses  children  as 
already  possessed  of  a  Divine  gift.  "  My  own 
view,"  he  says,  "  would,  even  in  theory,  apart  from 
the  experience  of  the  results,  be  adverse  to  the  use 
of  such  language."  But  not  only  is  this  system  of 
education  enjoined  by  the  Church's  laws,  and  re- 
commended by  her  practice,  but  it  has  the  sanction 
of  the  best  writers  even  of  the  school  which  Mr. 
Goode  professes  to  respect.  Even  Bucer  founds 
the  duty  of  parents  upon  the  gift  of  Baptism,  and 
speaks  of  the  importance  of  not  stifling  the  seed  of 
God's  word,  which  he  describes  as  already  received 
previously  to  the  very  first  dawning  of  reason."3 
"  For  though  we  cannot  understand  the  action  of 
God  on  the  infant  mind,  yet  it  is  certain,"  he 
says,  "  that  new  and  sacred  impulses  are  wrought 
in  it."0 

3  The  early  Church  gave  careful  training  to  Catechumens. 
But  this  training  was  not  irrespective  of  Baptism,  but  was 
based  upon  that  gift  of  grace,  which  in  the  case  of  adults,  whose 
individual  responsibility  is  developed,  is  its  indispensable  pre- 
parative. 

4  Vide  Pusey  on  Baptism,  p.  102,  121,  (first  Ed.) 

5  "  Se  suorum  liberorum,  postquam  baptismate  eos  Domino 
consecraverint,  prsdagogos  magis  quam  patres  agnoscant.  Quos 
eniin  ipsi  genuerant  came  in  mortem,  norunt  Christum  regen- 
uisse  baptismate  in  vitam  aeternam." — Script.  Ang.  p.  7. 

Then  follows  an  allusion  to  the  "  Semon  verbi  Dei,"  which 
must  be  explained  by  the  words  to  which  he  subscribed  in  his 
concord  with  Luther,  «  constat  infantilis  contingcre  per  bap- 
tismum  ....  donationcm  Spiritus  Sancti,  qui  in  eis  etficax  est 
pro  ipsorum  modo." — Script  Anglic,  p.  6G8. 

c  Script.  Anglic,  p.  6G8. 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  123 

It  is  a  matter  of  wonder  that  the  consideration 
which  has  been  mentioned  has  so  little  weight  with 
earnest-minded  men.  How  is  it  that  they  do  not 
perceive,  that  their  own  principles  involve  the 
necessity  of  some  means  of  union  between  the 
infant  and  God  ?  A  real  belief  in  original  sin,  im- 
plies, of  necessity,  a  belief  in  baptismal  purification. 
The  unwillingness  to  admit  it  in  words,  while  at 
the  same  time  their  own  practice  constantly  recog- 
nizes it,  illustrates  that  which  Bishop  Butler  so 
admirably  enforces,  the  impossibility  of  reducing  the 
scheme  of  Necessity  to  practice.  It  would  seem, 
indeed,  that  a  great  part  of  men's  repugnance  to  this 
view  of  things,  is  to  be  traced  to  an  opinion,  that 
if  a  measure  of  grace  has  been  already  bestowed, 
the  process  of  subsequent  conversion  will  be  crip- 
pled. The  ground  of  this  erroneous  impression  is, 
that  they  do  not  discriminate  between  man's  com- 
mon nature,  and  his  individual  responsibility.  The 
gift  of  grace,  indeed,  produces  so  wide  an  effect,  as 
to  influence  the  whole  of  man's  being.  Yet  the 
principle  of  responsibility  still  remains.  As  it  co- 
existed with  the  law  of  nature,  so  does  it  co-exist 
with  the  law  of  grace.  Its  positions  and  obliga- 
tions are  altered  ;  but  the  Will  is  still  man's  Will, 
and  accountable  for  its  acts. 

But  there  remains  another  very  important  con- 
sideration, on  which  the  practical  moment  of  Bap- 
tismal Regeneration  may  be  based  ;  its  connexion 
with  a  belief  in  Our  Lord's  Mediation.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  sacraments  is  so  essentially  allied  to 
this  central  truth  of  the  Gospel,  that  they  may  be 
shown  to  be  as  closely  associated  in  theory,  as  the 
experience  of  three  centuries  has  proved  them  to  be 


124  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

in  fact.  And  this  is  the  main  reason  why  the 
Church  has  always  held  so  firmly  to  the  truth  of 
Baptismal  Regeneration :  not  only  is  it  a  question 
of  practical  importance  to  all  her  children,  but  it 
involves  her  belief  in  the  main  point  of  Theology, 
the  "  Articulus  stantis  aut  cadentis  ecclesiae1'  the 
Mediation,  namely,  of  the  God-man,  Jesus  Christ 
Our  Lord.  To  this  subject  we  now  direct  at- 
tention. 

The  blessings  of  Regeneration  have  been  shown 
to  depend  upon  that  gift  of  grace,  which  is  be- 
stowed by  God  upon  man.  Such  a  process  has 
been  shown  to  involve  the  consideration  of  two 
parties — God  who  bestows  gifts — man  who  re- 
ceives them.  God's  method  of  bestowing  grace 
in  the  Gospel  covenant  has  been  stated  to  be  the 
Mediation  of  the  Man  Christ  Jesus.  Those  gifts 
which  were  needed  for  the  recovery  of  the  fallen 
children  of  Adam,  were  embodied  in  the  conse- 
crated Manhood  of  the  Word,  that  from  this  foun- 
tain they  might  flow  forth  into  the  whole  generation 
of  his  brethren.  This  was  the  new  system  by 
which  the  original  law  of  nature  was  superseded. 
The  Son  of  Mary  was  the  Second  Adam,  from 
whom  flowed  forth  a  stream  of  life,  to  correct  that 
hereditary  taint,  which  had  been  transmitted  to 
all  the  naturally-descended  children  of  Eve.  Now 
it  has  been  already  shown  by  the  testimony  of 
Holy  Scriptures,  that  the  means  whereby  the 
Second  Adam  propagates  that  spiritual  life  which 
we  derive  from  Him,  is  the  system  of  Sacraments. 
Nothing  shall  here  be  said  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
because  not  falling  within  the  range  of  the  present 
inquiry.  Nor  can  it  be  needful  to  quote  the  words 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  125 

of  the  Church's  ancient  Authors,  because  their 
opinions  have  been  sufficiently  exhibited  by  Bishop 
Bethell  and  Dr.  Pusey.  I  will  cite  an  author  of 
a  later  age,  and  a  different  school  of  Theology, 
whose  words  may  show  how  novel  is  that  system, 
which  would  lead  men  to  expect  the  gifts  of 
grace,  independently  of  the  agency  of  the  Second 
Adam.  "  Baptism,"  says  Luther,  "  cannot  fail 
to  effect  that  for  which  it  was  appointed,  namely, 
regeneration  and  spiritual  renewal,  as  St.  Paul 
teaches  in  the  third  Chapter  to  Titus.  For  as 
we  were  born  into  this  life  from  Adam  and  Eve, 
so  our  true  man  which  was  before  born  in  sins  to 
death  must  be  regenerated  to  righteousness  and 
eternal  life,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  To 
this  regeneration  and  renewal  there  lacks  the  ap- 
plication of  no  other  external  means  than  Water, 
and  Words ;  of  the  one  whereof  our  eyes  take 
note,  our  ears  of  the  other.  Yet  they  have  such 
virtue  and  energy  that  the  man  who  was  con- 
ceived and  born  in  sin  is  regenerated  in  the  view 
of  God  ;  and  that  he  who  was  before  condemned 
to  death,  is  now  made  truly  God's  son.  This 
glory  and  virtue  of  Holy  Baptism,  who  can  attain, 
and  perceive  by  sense,  thought,  and  human  intel- 
lect ?  You  should  not  regard,  therefore,  the  hand 
or  mouth  of  the  minister  who  baptizes — who  pours 
over  the  body  a  little  water,  which  he  has  taken 
in  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  and  pronounces  some 
few  words  (a  thing,  slight  and  easy  in  itself,  ad- 
dressing itself  only  to  the  eyes  and  ears;  and  our 
blinded  reason  sees  no  more  to  be  accomplished 
by  the  minister ;)  but  in  all  this  you  must  behold 
and  consider  the  word  and  work  of  God,  by 
11* 


126  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE 

whose  authority  and  command  Baptism  is  minis- 
tered, who  is  its  founder  and  author,  yea,  who  is 
Himself  the  Baptist.  And  hence  has  Baptism 
such  virtue  and  energy  (as  the  Holy  Ghost  wit- 
nesses by  St.  Paul,)  that  it  is  the  Laver  of  re- 
generation, and  of  the  renewal  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
by  which  laver  the  impure  and  sentenced  nature, 
which  we  draw  from  Adam,  is  altered  and  amend- 
ed. For  we  are  all  born  in  sin,  and  reek  with 
pollution  and  defilement;  so  foul  a  leprosy  of  sin 
pervades  us,  that  our  heart  and  reason  oppose 
God's  law  and  will,  and  from  this  plague  we 
have  no  power  to  purify  ourselves.  But  the  La- 
ver of  regeneration  purifies  and  takes  away  our 
hereditary  disease,  and  renders  us  innocent,  so 
that  being  exempted  from  sin  and  death,  we  may 
rise  in  the  last  day,  more  clean  and  glorious  than 
the  sun — pure  in  mind  and  body."  Therefore 
Luther  goes  on  to  add,  u  the  minister's  agency 
is  required  ;  his  hand  and  mouth  must  be  used  in 
pouring  out  water,  and  pronouncing  words  :  but  I 
ought  to  look  not  at  the  visible,  but  the  invisible 
Baptist,  the  author  and  founder  of  Baptism."7 

This  is  but  a  single  passage  out  of  many, 
which  might  be  quoted  from  Luther's  Homilies 
on  Baptism.  Neither  is  it  adduced  for  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  his  uniform  judgment  on  this 
subject,  which  has  been  amply  effected  by  Dr. 
Laurence  ;  nor  because  his  judgment  is  an  author- 
ity with  members  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  but 
because  it  sets  forth  so  ably  the  truth  which  I  de- 


'  "  Homilise  de  Baptismo."    Lutheri  Opcr.  "Wittenberg,  15.-^. 
vol.  vii.  p.  377. 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  127 

sire  to  establish,  that  Baptism  is  the  appointed 
means  wherein  the  Second  Adam  communicates 
His  renewed  nature  to  His  brethren.  That  which 
Luther's  words  especially  exhibit,  is  that  when 
we  look  to  the  Divine  Giver  of  grace,  when  we 
abstract  our  thoughts  from  any  thing,  which  men 
contribute  towards  the  work  of  renewal,  we  find 
this  rite  of  Baptism  appointed  as  the  specific 
mean,  through  which  God  is  pleased  to  bestow 
His  blessings.  Hence  Luther  begins  his  Homilies 
on  the  subject  by  saying,  "  If  Baptism  is  to  be 
anything,  and  deserves  the  name  of  a  Sacrament, 
there  must  of  necessity  be  some  external  sign  and 
tangible  creature,  through  which  God  deals  visi- 
bly with  us,  that  we  may  be  sure  of  His  action. 
For  it  is  not  Ills  will  to  deal  with  us  without  exter- 
nal media,  through  unembodied  secret  inspirations 
and  influences  or  by  any  private  and  secret  revela- 
tions"* The  denial  of  such  individual  influence 
on  the  part  of  God  cannot  be  meant,  of  course,  to 
put  a  bar  upon  the  general  law  of  spiritual  influ- 
ences ;  the  thing  intended  is,  to  set  forth  Baptism  as 
being  in  its  own  line  the  revealed  medium  through 
which  such  influences  descend  from  God  to  man, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  the  declared  instrument  through 
which  the  gifts  of  Mediation  are  extended  to  the 


8  Horn.  vol.  vii.  p.  347.  The  original  German  of  another  pas- 
sage, elsewhere  quoted  in  Latin  is  very  forcible.  "  Wiltu  mich 
leren  was  Geist  ist,  und  wo  ich  in  finde,  So  mustu  mich  nicht  ins 
SchlaurafTonland  weisen.  .  .  .  Sondern  hie  mustu  ihn  suchen, 
dahin  Er  in  selbs  gesteck  that,  durch  das  Wort,  das  er  die  Tauffe 
einsetzt  in  seinem  eigen  Namen." — Predigten,  D.  M.  L.  von 
unser  heiligen  TauflTe,  Anno  xxxv.  Luthers  Works,  Jena,  1558. 
vol.  iv.  p.  302. 


128  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE 

children  of  the  Second  Adam.  Now  when  we 
proceed  to  consider  the  effect  of  these  spiritual 
gifts  as  they  manifest  themselves  in  the  human 
receiver,  it  is  clear  that  a  second  element  must 
be  taken  into  account ;  we  have  not  only  the 
agency  of  God  who  bestows  gifts,  but  of  man  who 
receives  them.  All  the  good  actions  of  men  are 
referrible  to  the  combined  agency  of  these  two 
principles.  They  have  in  them  something  divine, 
or  they  could  not  be  good  :  they  have  something 
human  in  them,  or  they  would  not  be  the  acts  of 
responsible  beings.  Now,  where  an  action  is  in 
this  way  the  result  of  two  combining  influences, 
there  is  peculiar  danger  lest  one  element  or  the 
other  should  be  overlooked.  And  since  our 
own  contingent  towards  our  acts  is  impressed 
upon  us  by  our  own  consciousness,  nothing  is 
more  probable  than  that  we  should  overlook  that 
Divine  co-operation,  of  which  we  are  assured  only 
by  faith  and  revelation. 

And  here  it  is  that  the  regeneration  of  Infants 
in  Baptism  supplies  a  test  of  such  peculiar  value. 
]f  there  be  any  instance  in  which  it  is  possible  to 
eliminate  one  of  two  agencies,  which  combine  to 
produce  a  common  result,  such  an  instance  enables 
us  to  appreciate  the  importance  which  is  to  be 
assigned  to  the  other.  This  opportunity  is  afforded 
us  in  the  Baptism  of  infants.8  Seeing  that  in  their 
case  the  will  of  the  human  receiver  is  wholly  in- 
operative, the  benefit  of  the  ordinance  must  fall 
entirely  on  the  side  of  the  Divine  Giver.     So  that 

9  The  connexion  of  Baptism  with  the  Sacramental  System  at 
large,  is  stated  strikingly  by  Cranmer  in  his  answer  to  Gardner 
Jenkyns's  Ed.  iii.  65. 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  129 

we  have  an  opportunity  of  knowing  whether  men 
believe  that  in  the  Gospel  Covenant  any  thing  is 
really  done  by  God,  irrespective  of  the  instrumen- 
tality of  mortals.  And  thus  does  this  doctrine 
supply  us  with  a  most  invaluable  criterion,  which 
is  applicable  to  the  whole  Sacramental  system. 
For  the  real  weight  of  all  those  controversies  which 
agitate  the  present  day,  rests  upon  a  single  point ; 
whether  God  has  been  pleased  really  to  renew 
humanity  through  the  action  of  Christ,  or  whether 
He  looks  only,  as  a  favouring  co-operator,  upon 
those  whose  wTish  is  to  renew  themselves.  The 
first  is  the  Church  system  ;  it  regards  Christ's  In- 
carnation as  the  Regeneration  of  Nature,  and  the 
Sacramental  system  as  our  mean  of  participating 
in  this  mighty  alteration  :  the  second  does  not  al- 
together exclude  God's  action,  but  it  looks  upon 
it  as  co-operating  only  with  the  action  of  the  hu- 
man will.  I  do  not  at  present  enter  upon  the 
theory  of  Calvinism,  I  am  dealing  only  with  the 
practical  effect  of  any  system  of  teaching  which 
denies  the  reality  of  Baptismal  Grace.  The  result 
of  such  a  system  is  to  throw  the  whole  wTeight  on 
the  side  of  the  human  agent,  and  thereby  to  de- 
tract from  the  reality  of  those  blessings  which  are 
bestowed  through  the  Mediation  of  Christ.  So 
that  besides  the  practical  effort  of  Baptismal  Re- 
generation, as  suggesting  the  deepest  reasons  for 
self-examination  and  watchfulness,  it  supplies  us 
with  a  means  of  estimating  how  far  men  really 
appreciate  those  gifts  of  grace,  which  are  bestowed 
through  the  channel  of  Our  Lord's  Mediation. 
When  men  will  not  admit  that  anything  is  really 
done  in  an  instance,  in  which  all  that  we  are  sure 


130  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

of  is,  that  man  can  contribute  nothing,  when  they 
say  that  the  Church's  assurances,  that  something  is 
really  effected,  can  refer  only  to  those  cases  in 
which  infants  possess  peculiar  qualifications,  or  in 
which  their  future  exertions  are  foreseen  by  the 
Divine  Foreknowledge — they  must  pardon  us  if 
we  venture  to  doubt  how  far  their  professions  of 
referring  to  Divine  help  in  other  cases  mean  any 
thing;  if  we  attribute  them  rather  to  a  decorous 
habit  of  self-renunciation,  than  to  any  genuine 
perception  that  the  true  source  of  action  is  in  the 
Divine  Giver.  If  they  refuse  to  recognize  the 
action  of  a  divine  power  in  the  only  instance  in 
which  we  are  able  to  disengage  it  altogether  from 
human  co-operation,  is  there  not  reason  to  question 
whether  in  other  cases  they  have  actual  belief,  as 
themselves  suppose,  in  the  agency  of  that  unseen  In- 
telligence,who  is  truly  to  be  recognized  as  the  parent 
of  all  holy  action  in  the  Church  of  the  Redeemed  ? 
There  are  many  who  will  be  startled  by  the  line 
of  argument  which  has  been  employed.  The  as- 
sertion that  to  deny  Baptismal  Regeneration  is  to 
derogate  from  the  doctrine  of  Our  Lord's  Media- 
tion, they  will  be  ready  to  resent  as  an  unjust 
imputation.  Yet  they  should  remember,  that 
where  this  doctrine  had  been  denied  by  any  com- 
munity of  men  (provided  there  has  been  opportu- 
nity for  the  free  development  of  its  tendencies,) 
the  heresy  of  Socinus  has  in  every  instance  been 
the  result.  And  they  should  not  be  surprised  if 
a  logical  coherence  be  pointed  out  between  opi- 
nions, which  have  been  shown  by  experience  to 
be  actually  related.  Yet  men  will  say,  with  truth, 
that  this  is  the  last  thing  which  they  consciously 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  131 

design,  they  have  no  intention  of  denying  that  all 
gifts  proceed  from  God,  through  the  Mediation  of 
Christ ;  all  which  they  intend  to  deny  is  the  pre- 
dominant place  which  has  been  assigned  to  Sacra- 
ments. For  this  they  say  is  to  attach  unreasonable 
importance  to  what  is  external.  Christ's  propi- 
tiation for  us,  they  observe,  depends  upon  His 
death;  and  He  is  able  to  sympathize  with  us  be- 
cause He  participates  in  our  nature.  Butwehold 
intercourse  with  Him  net  merely  through  that  Sa- 
cramental union  wThich  is  commenced  in  Baptism, 
but  likewise  by  all  those  affections  and  desires, 
all  those  prayers  and  ejaculations,  in  which  the 
soul  is  drawn  towards  its  Saviour.  Sacraments 
they  allow  to  be  of  especial  efficacy,  but  then  it  is 
only  because  their  acted  nature  gives  greater  life 
to  the  affections  of  those  who  celebrate  them. 
And  the  higher  view  which  has  been  taken  of 
their  effect,  as  the  actual  means,  whereby  the  Me- 
diator bestowTs  heavenly  blessings,  would  in  their 
opinion  be  to  substitute  the  Incarnation  for  the 
Atonement,  and  Christ's  Sacramental  presence  for 
the  sanctifying  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

A  word  in  the  first  place  respecting  the  two  last 
objections.  If  the  propitiation  wThich  Our  Lord 
effected  on  the  Cross  for  the  sins  of  men  was  a  real 
work,  and  not  a  mere  technical  representation — if  it 
effected  any  actual  change  in  the  position  of  men — 
it  must  have  been  built  on  the  truth  of  that  oneness 
between  Him  and  mankind,  which  was  brought 
about  through  His  Incarnation.  "  Sacrifice  and 
offering  Thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  hast  Thou 
prepared  me."  To  set  up,  therefore,  the  Atone- 
ment of  Christ  against  His  Incarnation,  as  though 


132  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

the  two  doctrines  could  be  contrasted  with  one 
another,  is  as  if  it  were  supposed  that  God's  creative 
power  was  denied,  because  His  Omnipotence  was 
asserted.  Again,  to  set  up  the  sanctifying  influ- 
ence of  God  the  Holy  Ghost  against  the  Sacra- 
mental Presence  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  is  to  forget 
what  was  that  especial  function  which  the  Third 
Person  to  the  Blessed  Trinity  undertook  to  dis- 
charge in  the  work  of  man's  redemption.  For  His 
offices  were  not  irrespective  of  the  Incarnation  of 
the  Word;  the  presence  of  the  Word  was  the  very 
gift  which  the  Spirit  was  to  bestow  upon  the  faith- 
ful :  "  He  shall  receive  of  Mine  and  shall  show  it 
unto  you."  That  which  consecrated  the  Manhood 
of  the  Son  of  God  to  be  the  food  of  souls,  was  that 
hallowing  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  the 
God-man  at  once  procured  and  bestowed  by  His 
Ascension.  "  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  ot 
man  ascend  up  where  He  was  before.  It  is  the 
Spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing." 
There  can  be  no  contrast,  then,  between  the 
Sanctifying  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  God- 
man's  Sacramental  Presence ;  because  the  very  ob- 
ject of  the  one  is  to  bestow  upon  us  the  other.  As 
the  Two  Blessed  Persons  are  one  in  their  nature, 
so  are  the  two  influences  identical  in  their  effect. 
And  as  to  the  assertion  that  prayer  and  holy  affec- 
tions are  a  means  of  union  with  Christ,  this,  be  it 
remembered,  is  to  refer  to  those  means  whereby  wTe 
hold  intercourse  with  God  ;  whereas  that  which  we 
are  considering,  is  the  mean  whereby  God  holds 
inter. ourse  with  us.  There  can  be  no  more  con- 
trast, therefore,  between  these  things,  than  between 
the  loyalty  of  a  subject  and  the  bounty  of  his  Prince. 


OF   BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  133 

We  hold  intercourse  with  God  through  all  those 
means  whereby  we  ascend  towards  Him.  He  holds 
intercourse  with  us  through  the  Mediation  of  Christ ; 
and  therein  through  those  peculiar  institutions 
whereby  the  sanctified  Humanity  of  Him,  who  is 
one  with  the  Father,  is  transmitted  to  His  earthly 
brethren.  So  that  we  may  take  that  one  case  in 
which  this  action  is  wholly  detached  from  any 
human  co-operation,  namely  that  of  Infant  Baptism, 
as  a  test  whether  the  other  actions  of  the  Mediator 
are  really  apprehended. 

For  even  those  actings  of  Christ  Our  Lord  upon 
the  spirits  of  men,  which  might  seem  to  be  most 
independent  of  the  Sacramental  System,  have  a  real 
relation  to  it.  The  actings  of  the  Eternal  Word 
are  as  wide  as  the  spirits  which  He  has  created. 
"  In  Him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light  of 
men."  And  this  is  the  secret  of  that  gracious  in- 
fluence, by  which  those  who  are  strangers  to  the 
Church  are  not  wholly  unvisited  :  this  seed  sprung 
up  in  the  heart  of  many  a  Gentile :  it  is  present 
even  now  in  those  whom  invincible  ignorance  de- 
tains without  the  Church's  pale,  who  yearn  after 
her  blessings  but  do  not  possess  them.  Such  men 
"  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts." 
But  is  not  the  very  purpose  of  this  gracious  in- 
fluence to  lead  men  to  that  full  incorporation  with 
the  Word  made  flesh,  whereby  they  may  become 
fellow-citizens  with  the  saints  and  of  the  household 
of  God  ?  These  Divine  influences  then,  whereby 
the  Word  draws  all  hearts  towards  entire  com- 
munion with  Him,  are  not  irrespective  of  His  Sacra- 
mental Presence,  seeing  that  it  is  the  term  towards 
which  they  are  tending. 

12 


134  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE 

And  still  more  is  that  hidden  communion  of  soul, 
whereby  He  sways  the  hearts  of  those  who  are  truly 
joined  to  Him,  a  result  of  their  full  oneness  with 
Himself.  "  The  secret  of  the  Lord  is  with  them 
that  fear  Him."  As  that  preventing  influence 
whereby  He  wins  men  to  Him,  tends  towards  Sacra- 
mental union  as  its  highest  term,  so  the  sympathy 
between  Christ  and  His  people  is  built  upon  the 
same  union,  as  its  fundamental  principle.  For  both 
are  based  upon  the  truth  that  through  His  manhood 
are  derived  those  regenerating  gifts,  which  sanctify 
ours.  Let  it  be  considered,  then,  what  is  the  real 
meaning  of  setting  up  these  means  of  union  with 
Christ,  as  something  which  may  be  opposed  to  that 
Sacramental  union,  from  which  they  derive  their 
efficacy.  It  is  nothing  else,  in  truth,  but  to  put 
those  means  of  union  with  God  which  we  had  by 
nature,  in  place  of  those  which  are  given  to  us 
through  the  Mediation  of  Christ.  For  what  leads 
men  to  contend  for  and  prefer  those  opportunities 
of  union,  which  are  irrespective  of  the  Sacramental 
system  ?  The  system  of  Sacraments,  they  say,  de- 
pends too  much  on  what  is  physical  and  external  : 
these  things  can  have  no  real  tendency  to  confer 
grace.  "  It  is  not  very  conceivable/'  says  one 
writer,  "how  water,  literally  taken,  being  applied 
to  the  body,  should  be  instrumental  to  the  regene- 
ration of  the  soul."  "  The  washing  of  the  body," 
says  another,  "  cannot  affect  the  soul,  nor  infuse 
any  gracious  habits  into  it,  which  itself  hath  not  ; 
neither  can  it  work  morally  by  way  of  suasion  and 
argument,  because  infants  have  not  the  use  of  reason 
to  apprehend  any  such."  These  are  arguments 
drawn  from  the  unfitness  of  the  material  agents,  em- 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  135 

ployed  in  Baptism,  to  produce  an  inward  result. 
Such  a  mode  of  reasoning  implies  of  course  that  we 
have  a  certain  standard  in  our  own^minds,  whereby 
we  are  able  to  judge,  respecting  the  consonance  or 
inconsonance  of  the  means  employed,  to  bring  about 
their  effect.  Now  what  are  the  channels  to  which 
men  look,  as  fitter  than  Sacraments  for  conveying  a 
spiritual  effect  ?  They  are  professedly  those  which 
are  less  eatemal ;  those  which  arise  out  of  the  nature 
of  the  mind,  which  are  built  upon  its  power  of  com- 
muning at  once  with  unseen  intelligences — these 
means  of  intercourse  with  God  seem  more  natural, 
and  men  refer  to  these,  when  they  say  that  we  do 
not  hold  intercourse  with  God  merely  by  Sacra- 
ments, but  by  all  those  holy  aspirations,  whereby 
the  mind  travels  forth  towards  its  invisible  Creator. 
That  when  men  become  members  of  Christ  they  are 
restored  to  that  right  of  intercourse  with  God,  which 
renders  their  thoughts  and  affections  a  means  of 
communion  with  Him,  has  already  been  admitted. 
But  to  rest  upon  this  mean  of  union  in  opposition  to 
the  system  of  Sacraments,  is  to  abandon  the  law  of 
grace  for  the  law  of  nature.  For  the  very  loss 
which  men  incurred  by  the  Fall,  was  the  forfeiture 
of  that  natural  intercourse  with  God,  which  can 
only  be  replaced  through  the  Mediation  of  Christ. 
So  that  to  revert  to  those  inward  channels,  where- 
by the  soul  was  naturally  fitted  to  approach  God,  is 
to  fancy  that  we  can  turn  to  God  of  ourselves,  and 
thus  to  fall  into  the  error  of  Pelagianism ;  and 
thereby  to  renounce  that  doctrine  of  Mediation, 
which  is  founded  on  the  re-creation  of  mankind  in 
Christ. 

Now  it  is  no  answer  to  these  complaints  to  say, 


136  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

as  men  will  do,  that  they  are  not  Pelagians,  because 
they  trust  to  God's  power,  and  not  to  their  own 
efforts;  and  that  they  do  not  reject  Christ's  Media- 
tion, because  His  death,  intercession,  and  sym- 
pathy, are  the  basis  of  their  hopes.  For  Pelagianism 
does  not  consist  merely  of  the  professed  assertion 
that  men  can  save  themselves ;  it  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  every  system,  which  builds  the  great  work  oi 
man's  recovery  on  agencies  which  act  directly 
through  the  natural  faculties  of  each  man's  mind, 
instead  of  resting  it  on  that  renewal  of  humanity  at 
at  large,  which  was  effected  in  the  Incarnation  oi 
Christ.  For  what  are  our  natural  faculties  but  a 
gift  of  God  ?10  What,  therefore,  are  those  move- 
ments which  they  severally  originate,  but  His 
work  ?  In  this  sense,  therefore,  all  who  believe  in 
a  Creator  at  all,  may  suppose  that  all  good  aspi- 
rations are  a  divine  gift.  But  then  this  mode  of 
receiving  blessings  has  been  obstructed  by  sin.  In 
place  of  it  came  that  communication  of  divine 
power,  which  had  its  centre  in  the  humanity  of  the 
Second  Adam.  To  refer,  therefore,  to  these  natural 
channels  of  communion  with  God,  as  something 
which  may  be  substituted  in  the  place  of  that 
sacramental  fellowship,  whereby  he  communicates 
His  nature,  is  the  very  error  of  Pelagius,  because 
it  is  to  substitute  the  efficacy  of  nature  for  the  effi- 
cacy of  grace. 

Nor  is  it  to  any  purpose  to  say  that  these  ob- 
jections do  not  apply,  because  men  affirm  that  all 
their  hopes  are  founded  on  the  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
For   men  cannot  do  full  justice  to  the  sacrifice, 

10  St.  Austin,  Ep.  cxciv.  vol.  ii.  p.  717. 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  137 

intercession,  and  sympathy  of  Christ,  unless  they 
recognize  that  main  Jaw  of  His  Mediation,  that 
through  His  manhood  were  bestowed  those  gifts 
of  grace,  by  which  the  regeneration  of  His  bre- 
thren was  to  be  effected.  Each  part  of  our  Lord's 
work  may  no  doubt  be  viewed  by  itself,  and  the 
efficacy  of  each  implies  the  reality  of  His  charac- 
ter ;  but  men  cannot  discern  the  full  purpose  of 
His  mission,  unless  the  whole  truth  of  His  Me- 
diation be  accepted.  To  leave  out  of  account  the 
operation  of  Our  Lord's  manhood,  as  the  mean 
through  which  spiritual  blessings  are  communi- 
cated to  man,  has  a  direct  tendency  to  lead  men 
into  that  error  of  Sabellianism,  which  would  merge 
the  reality  of  his  person  in  a  mere  appellation, 
under  which  the  Eternal  Father  is  pleased  to  be 
addressed.  This  is  exactly  the  effect  which  the 
denial  of  the  Sacramental  system  has  been  upon  a 
recent  writer,  who  tells  us,  that  Christ  is  only  "a 
change  of  name"  for  God;  and  that  "  the  re- 
verential imagination  of  the  Church  at  Antioch 
sublimated  the  Mediator  into  something  spiritually 
un distinguishable  from  the  morally  perfect  and 
omnipresent  God,  and  thus  neutralized  the  doc- 
trine ;  saving  spirituality  at  the  expense  of  logic."11 
In  this  manner  is  the  reality  of  our  Lord's  being, 
denied  by  a  person,  who  yet  professes  to  reve- 
rence the  name  of  Christ.  For  what  more  clearly 
marks  out  the  Eternal  Word  as  a  true  Person  in 
the  Ever-Blessed  Trinity,  than  that  participation 
in  our  nature,  which  He  vouchsafed  to  make  the 
instrument  in  His  work  of  Mediation?    And  al- 

11 «  The  Soul,"  &c,  by  F.  W.  Newman,  p.  67. 


138  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

though  men  may  be  kept  from  such  avowed  Sa- 
bellianism  by  their  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  Our 
Lord's  sacrifice,  and  in  the  value  of  His  inter- 
cession, yet  past  experience  shows  how  liable  are 
even  these  truths  to  be  lost,  when  their  relation  to 
the  other  acts  of  the  Mediator  are  forgotten.  And 
the  history  of  the  Nonconformist  congregations  in 
our  own  country  (all  of  whom  gradually  sub- 
sided into  Socinian  disbelief,)  shows  that  it  is  not 
the  mere  technical  affirmation  of  divine  truths 
which  will  insure  the  Church's  vitality,  unless 
that  practical  system  is  duly  maintained,  whereby 
the  Godman  communicates  Himself  in  Sacraments 
to  His  people.  For  what  could  be  better  than  the 
theoretical  statement  of  truth  which  is  given  by 
Baxter,  who  yet  formed  the  first  link  in  a  series, 
which  has  ended  in  an  entire  denial  of  Our  Lord's 
Mediation  ?  "  The  Spirit,"  he  says,  "  is  not  given 
radically  or  immediately  to  any  Christian,  but  to 
Christ  our  head  alone,  and  from  Him  to  us." 
u  These  things,"  he  remarks,  are  distinctly  and 
clearly  understood  but  by  very  few  ;  and  we  are 
all  very  much  in  the  dark  about  them.  But  I 
think  (however  doctrinally  we  may  speak  better) 
that  most  Christians  are  habituated  to  this  peril- 
ous misapprehension  (which  is  partly  against 
Christianity  itself,)  that  the  Spirit  floweth  imme- 
diately from  the  Divine  nature  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son  (as  to  the  authoritative  or  potestative 
conveyance)  unto  our  souls.  And  we  forget  that 
it  is  first  given  to  Christ  in  His  glorified  huma- 
nity as  our  Head,  and  radicated  in  Him,  and  that 
it  is  the  office  of  this  glorified  Head  to  send  or 
communicate  to  all  His  members  from  Himself 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  139 

that  Spirit,  which  must  operate  in  them  as  they 
have  need."  Again,  "the  Spirit  is  not  given 
radically  or  immediately  from  God  to  any  believer, 
but  to  Christ,  and  so  derivatively  from  Him  to  us. 
Not  that  a  Divine  nature  in  the  Third  Person  is 
subject  to  the  human  nature  in  Christ ;  but  that 
God  hath  made  it  the  office  of  our  Mediator's  glo- 
rified humanity,  to  be  the  cistern  that  shall  first 
receive  the  waters  of  life,  and  convey  them  by 
pipes  of  His  appointed  means  to  all  the  offices  of 
His  House  :  or  to  be  the  Head  of  the  animal  spirits, 
and  by  nerves  to  convey  to  all  the  members."13 

The  considerations  adduced  will  supply  an 
answer  to  the  question,  whether  the  disputes  re- 
specting Regeneration  are  a  mere  affair  of  words, 
and  whether  a  reconciliation  may  be  effected 
among  the  various  parties  in  the  Church,  between 
whom  it  is  contested.  For  if  the  dispute  respect 
nothing  but  the  terms  employed,  and  no  real  dif- 
ference exist  respecting  the  things  intended,  the 
two  parties  only  require  to  understand  one  an- 
other, in  order  to  be  at  concord.  But  if  men  are 
at  variance  respecting  the  things  themselves,  if  in 
their  belief  the  two  parties  are  discordant,  any  ad- 
ditional light  which  is  thrown  upon  the  subject 
will  only  increase  their  perception  of  the  discre- 
pancy. Now  it  would  seem,  from  what  has  been 
said,  that  their  exists  both  a  mere  verbal  mis- 
understanding, which  might  easily  be  healed,  and 
also  a  real  difference  in  belief,  which  no  expla- 
nation will  do  away  with.  There  are  some  per- 
sons who  are  offended  by  the  term  Baptismal  Re- 
generation, because  they  think  it  inconsistent  with 

12  "  The  Christian  Directory,"  part  iii.  Qucs.  42. 


140  PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

a  sense  of  the  importance  and  reality  of  conver- 
sion. They  admit  that  some  spiritual  gift  is  be- 
stowed in  Infant  Baptism,  but  they  think  that  the 
"full  Baptismal  blessing,"  to  employ  a  phrase 
of  Mr.  Goode's,  is  only  attained  in  riper  years  ; 
when  the  understanding  and  will  of  the  recipient 
has  apprehended  and  done  justice  to  the  endow- 
ment, which  in  Baptism  had  really  been  bestowed 
by  the  Giver.  They  think  it  dangerous,  therefore, 
to  speak  of  Baptismal  regeneration,  because  they 
suppose  that  men  will  of  necessity  confound 
the  initial  state  of  the  Christian  progress  with  its 
stages  of  subsequent  development.  Such  an  ob- 
jection is  surely  ill-founded  ;  it  leads  to  a  phrase- 
ology not  sanctioned  by  Scripture  or  the  Church, 
and  opens  the  door  for  greater  misapprehensions. 
But  in  this  case  the  difference  of  words  is  greater 
than  that  of  things  :  and  therefore  it  may  be  hoped 
that  further  explanation  may  abate  it.  And  in  the 
mean  time  it  is  not  too  much  to  ask  such  persons 
to  employ  the  Church's  words,  while  they  are  al- 
lowed free  scope  for  such  explanations  as  may 
satisfy  their  own  conscience. 

But  it  is  otherwise  when  the  diversity  in  ideas 
is  greater  than  that  in  expressions.  For  there  are 
doubtless  those,  whose  general  belief  in  the  whole 
Sacrametal  system  is  only  brought  out  by  that  pecu- 
liar test  which  is  afforded  by  the  question  of  Bap- 
tismal Regeneration.  That  which  distinguishes  them 
from  the  parties  last  mentioned,  is  their  denial  tluL 
any  spiritual  gift  is  actually  bestowed  in  Baptism  by 
virtue  of  Christ's  appointment.  If  any  spiritual 
benefit  is  bestowed  on  infants  in  Baptism,  they  say 
that  it  is  due  to  some  qualification  by  which  the  re- 


OF    BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  141 

cipients  are  distinguished  ;  such  as  the  Christian 
profession  and  piety  of  their  parents  or  sponsors,  or 
a  previous  gift  of  grace  bestowed  supernaturally 
upon  themselves,  or  the  prevision  of  their  future 
conduct ;  otherwise,  they  say,  that  infants  leave  the 
font  as  they  came  to  it :  the  communication  of  any 
spiritual  gift  to  all  infants  duly  baptized,  they  abso- 
lutely deny.  Now,  it  is  plain  that  such  persons  do 
not  expect  the  renewal  of  man's  nature  from  any 
actual  engrafting  in  the  manhood  of  Christ,  but  from 
a  Divine  power  acting  according  to  some  other  law. 
For  unless  there  be  a  communication  of  gifts  through 
those  principles  of  nature  which  lie  in  the  human 
receiver,  they  deny  not  only,  which  all  admit,  that 
the  blessing  is  used,  but  also  that  any  blessing  is 
given.  And  thus  do  they  abandon  one  main  part 
of  the  Mediation  of  Christ,  that  in  His  Man's  na- 
ture commenced  that  re-creation  of  humanity,  which 
is  actually  bestowed  on  all  His  members.  And 
though  they  may  continue  to  believe  the  reality  of 
Our  Lord's  Sacrifice,  and  the  value  of  His  Interces- 
sion, yet  it  is  obvious  that  these  doctrines  also  must 
lose  much  of  their  force  and  meaning,  when  they 
are  forcibly  rent  away  from  the  other  portions  of  His 
wondrous  Mediation.  So  that  it  is  only  a  question 
of  time  and  circumstances,  whether  such  persons 
will  not  follow  the  various  bodies  of  Continental 
Protestants,  who  have  passed  from  a  denial  of  Our 
Lord's  Sacramental  Presence  to  a  denial  of  His  na- 
ture. And,  therefore,  it  is  plain  that  an  irreconcila- 
ble hostility  exists  between  such  opinions  and  those 
of  the  Church.  It  is  an  hostility  which  explanation 
and  inquiry  can  only  increase.  Neither  can  the  gulf 
between  them  be  bridged  over,  unless  the  parties  in 


1 42  THI 

question  are  converted  to  a  belief  in  the  full  doctrine 
of  Our  Lord's  Mediation,  or  the  English  Church 
loses  her  claim  to  be  any  longer  a  portion  of  the 
Church  Catholic,  by  renouncing  the  doctrine  of  the 
Cross.  Now,  may  God  in  His  mercy  grant  us  to 
behold  the  first,  and  may  no  vain  hope  of  an  unreal 
conciliation  expose  us  to  the  second. 


CHAPTER  V. 

HOW  FAR    BELIEF  IN  BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION    IS 
CONSISTENT  WITH  ADHERENCE  TO   CALVINISM. 

The  question  which  remains  for  inquiry,  is  that 
new  ground,  upon  which  Mr.  Goode  has  placed  his 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regenera- 
tion— its  incompatibility  with  the  tenets  of  Calvin. 
This  subject  naturally  follows  the  considerations 
which  have  hitherto  been  adduced,  because  by  ad- 
mitting the  charges  of  Laurence,  and  denying  the 
assertion  of  Scott,  Mr.  Goode  transfers  his  opposi- 
tion from  the  ground  on  which  the  doctrine  of  Bap- 
tismal Regeneration  is  founded,  to  the  doctrine  it- 
self. His  objection  is  not  to  the  premises,  but  to 
the  result.  You  may  assert,  he  says,  that  Baptis- 
mal Regeneration  is  taught  by  Scripture  and  held 
by  the  Church  ;  but  without  inquiring  into  the 
grounds  on  which  the  assertion  is  rested,  we  can 
show  the  conclusion  to  be  incorrect.  In  the  pre- 
vious chapters,  which  contained  the  reasons  for 
which  this  doctrine  is  to  be  believed,  Mr.  Goode's 
pages  were  but  incidentally  referred  to  ;  but  in  what 
follows,  it  becomes  necessary  to  meet  his  statements 


OF   DIVINE    DECREES.  143 

more  expressly.  If  premises  only  were  disputed, 
they  might  be  confirmed,  or  new  ones  suggested  ; 
but  when  the  conclusion  is  declared  to  be  impossi- 
ble, its  truth  cannot  be  established  except  by  over- 
throwing the  opposite  hypothesis. 

Mr.  Goode's  assertions  are  the  following:  first, 
That  those  who  composed  the  Church's  offices  were 
themselves  Calvinists ;  secondly,  that  if  this  were 
not  the  case,  yet  that  many  distinguished  persons 
in  our  Church,  who  were  plainly  designed  to  be 
included  within  her  pale,  were  Calvinists  ;  thirdly, 
that  the  Calvinistic  doctrines  of  Election,  Predes- 
tination, and  Perseverance,  are  incompatible  writb 
the  admission  of  Baptismal  Regeneration.  In  as- 
serting the  first  point,  Mr.  Goode  seems  occasionally 
to  feel  the  weakness  of  his  ground  ;  while,  respect- 
ing the  second,  he  plainly  speaks  like  a  man  who 
thinks  his  position  impregnable :  the  third  he  ap- 
pears to  suppose  may  be  taken  for  granted,  provided 
Baptismal  Regeneration  be  understood  to  imply 
that  real  communication  of  spiritual  gifts,  which  has 
been  all  along  contended  for  in  these  pages.  I 
shall  endeavour  to  show — first,  That  the  composers 
or  compilers  of  our  Church's  offices  were  not  Cal- 
vinists ;  secondly,  that  the  prevalence  of  partial 
Calvinism  in  the  Church,  at  one  period  in  her  his- 
tory, makes  nothing  for  Mr.  Goode's  argument; 
and  thirdly,  I  shall  consider  hfow  far  a  belief  in  the 
doctrines  of  Election,  Predestination,  and  Perse- 
verance, is  incompatible  with  a  belief  in  Baptismal 
Regeneration.  It  will  be  most  convenient  to  begin 
with  the  last  of  these  three  subjects,  which  shall  be 
treated  of  in  the  present  Chapter. 

The  doctrines  of  Election,  Predestination,  and 


144 

Perseverance,  were  not  broached  for  the  first  time, 
when  Calvin  reared  his  intellectual  empire  at 
Geneva.  They  rest  upon  statements  of  Holy 
Scripture,  and  had  received  a  certain  form  in  the 
early  Church.  What  was  that  form,  and  how  was 
it  modified  by  the  Genevese  teacher  ?  That  which 
leads  the  way  to  these  doctrines,  and  forms  the 
basis  on  which  they  are  built,  is  plainly  the  truth  of 
God's  Prescience.  Among  the  attributes  of  the 
Most  High,  universal  knowledge  is  neither  less 
certain  nor  less  astonishing  than  unlimited  power. 
That  all  things,  past,  present,  and  to  come,  are 
spread  out  as  in  a  map  before  the  Supreme  Intelli- 
gence, is  a  part  of  what  we  design,  when  we  speak 
of  God's  Omniscience.  "  Known  unto  God  are 
all  His  works  from  the  beginning  of  the  world." 
Insomuch  that  to  deny  this  truth,  is  to  deny  the 
existence  of  God,1  since  by  God  we  mean  a  Being, 
infinite  both  in  power  and  knowledge.  And  there- 
fore, as  to  bestow  upon  His  creatures  the  property 
of  volition  is  within  His  power,  so  to  foresee  their 
voluntary  actions  is  within  His  knowledge.  Such 
foreknowledge,  however,  does  not  in  itself  detract 
from  the  voluntary  nature  of  the  actions  which  are 
foreknown,  nor  therefore  from  the  responsibility  of 
the  actors  ;  for  there  is  no  more  reason  why  the 
fore-knowledge  of  the  Omniscient  should  interfere 
with  the  free-agency  of  the  beings  who  are  its 
objects,  than  the  after-knowledge  of  His  limited 
creatures.2 

1  "  Qui  non  est  prsescius  omnium  futurorum,  non  est  utique 
Deus."— De  Civ.  Dei.  v.  9. 

2  "  Nullo  modo  cogimur  aut  retenta  prscscientia  Dei,  tollere 
voluntatis  arbitrium,  aut  retento  voluntatis  arbitrio,  Deum,  quod 
nefas  est,  negare  prascium  futurorum." — De  Civ.  Dei.  v.  10. 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  145 

But  it  is  otherwise,  when  wTe  pass  from  the  re- 
gion of  foreknowledge  to  that  of  pre -appointment. 
We  now  come  to  something  which,  so  far  as  it 
goes,  is  an  interference  with  the  free-agency, 
and,  therefore,  wTith  the  responsibility  of  men. 
The  question  is,  in  what  manner,  and  to  what 
degree  are  they  interfered  with  ?  And  this  is  a 
thing,  respecting  which  we  must  refer  to  Holy 
Writ.  For  in  Scripture  we  read  of  various  decrees 
promulgated  respecting  the  condition  of  man, 
either  previous  or  subsequent  to  the  Fall.  The 
original  decree  preceded  the  Fall,  and  means 
were  no  doubt  afforded  to  the  race  of  man  for 
carrying  it  into  execution.  It  referred  to  that  au- 
thority, which  man  should  exercise  in  the  world 
as  God's  vicegerent,  and  to  those  properties  of 
mind  and  body,  whereby  he  was  qualified  for  so 
high  a  trust.  "  God  said,  let  us  make  man  in 
our  image,  after  our  likeness  :  and  let  them  have 
dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the 
foul  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all 
the  earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth."  Here  was  a  decree 
respecting  man,  which  pointed  out  his  place 
in  the  universe  of  created  kings,  and  rested  it 
upon  that  likeness  to  the  great  Creator,  wmereb;/ 
he  was  enabled  to  hold  intercourse  with  the  Su- 
preme Spirit,  after  whom  he  was  framed.  Yet 
this  first  decree  did  not  destroy  the  free-agency 
of  the  being  to  whom  it  related,  for  through 
Adam's  voluntary  sin  its  operation  was  stopped, 
and  its  design  defeated.  And  then  came  a  period, 
the  only  period  in  the  history  of  man,  when  his 
race  might  be  said  to  be  wholly  in  a  state  of  na- 
13 


146  the  church's  doctrine 

ture,  to  be  left  to  itself,  and  to  be  without  God  in 
the  world.  For  that  which  the  Apostle  speaks  of 
as  the  state  of  those  who  have  cast  off  God,  was 
the  state  of  man  at  large,  after  he  had  fallen  from 
original  grace,  and  before  a  new  promise  of  grace 
wTas  given.  And  now,  then,  it  seemed  that  Sa- 
tan's purpose  was  accomplished,  and  that  man's 
fall  was  irretrievable.  So  that  we  hear  of  no  at- 
tempt on  his  part  at  recovery;  there  was  no  such 
civil  wisdom  as  might  have  sufficed  for  the  con- 
struction of  society,  nor  such  moral  perception  as 
the  Philosopher  pretends.  All  these  things  were 
forfeited,  with  that  intercourse  with  God,  which 
man  had  lost.  ,  He  hid  himself  from  his  Maker's 
presence  in  the  shadows  of  the  forest,  like  the 
beasts. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  only  hope  of 
man's  recovery  was  in  a  fresh  decree  on  the  part 
of  his  Maker.  And  that  such  a  decree  would  go 
forth,  and  what  would  be  its  consequences,  had 
been  known  beforehand  to  the  Supreme  Intelli- 
gence, and  had  been  part  of  His  ordination,  even 
when  He  beheld  it  as  consequent  upon  that  volun- 
tary act  of  our  first  parent,  whereby  he  was  the 
free  author  of  his  own  ruin.  For  that  which  was 
"  manifest  in  these  last  times"  was  "  fore-ordained 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  Now  of 
what  nature  was  this  new  decree,  which  was  to 
be  brought  forth  out  of  the  treasures  of  eternal 
mercy  ?  What  were  the  means  by  which  the 
race  of  man  might  be  re-created  ?  The  decree 
was  proclaimed  in  the  promise  of  the  woman's 
seed,  by  whom  the  serpent-enemy  was  to  be 
trodden  under  foot.     And  after  this  promise  had 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  147 

been  gradually  unfolded  to  succeeding  Prophets, 
it  was  more  plainly  set  forth  to  two  among  the 
latest  teachers  of  Israel.  To  Isaiah  was  revealed 
the  divine  character  of  the  coming  deliverer — 
"Immanuel,  God  with  us" — and  also  that  He 
would  take  upon  Himself  that  burden  under 
which  humanity  was  groaning — for  the  transgres- 
sion of  My  people  was  He  stricken  :  to  Daniel 
corresponding  truths  were  exhibited  by  vision. 
He  saw  how  the  Humanity  of  Christ  was  dug  out 
of  the  mine  of  man's  nature  without  man's  parti- 
cipation— "  a  stone  cut  out  of  a  mountain  with- 
out hands" — and  again,  he  saw  the  future  exten- 
sion of  that  kingdom,  which  the  new  Heir  of 
man's  nature  was  predestined  to  establish.  "  I 
saw  in  the  night-visions,  and  behold  one  like  the 
Son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and 
came  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought 
Him  near  before  Him.  And  there  was  given 
Him  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that 
all  people,  nations,  and  languages,  should  serve 
Him ;  His  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion, 
which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  His  kingdom  that 
which  shall  not  be  destroyed."  In  this  way  did 
the  Most  High  declare  His  Predestination  of  that 
kingdom,  which  was  to  be  set  up  by  "  My  ser- 
vant, whom  I  uphold,  Mine  elect,  in  whom  My 
soul  delighteth."  For  the  title  of  elect  is  espe- 
cially bestowed  on  the  Incarnate  Son,  whose  hu- 
manity was  taken  out  of  the  mass  of  man's  nature, 
that  He  might  be  the  new  Adam,  the  fresh  "be- 
ginning of  the  creation  of  God."  He  is  said  to 
be  "My  servant  whom  I  have  chosen."  For  as 
the  old  decree  had  regarded  in  the  first  instance 


148  the  church's  doctkine 

our  original  Father,  and  then  had  contemplated 
the  human  race,  as  receiving  in  Him,  and  through 
Him,  the  blessings  of  nature,  so  did  the  new  de- 
cree regard  first  the  Head  of  the  renewed  race, 
and  see  in  him  those  spiritual  members,  to  whom 
from  His  Humanity  were  to  be  communicated 
the  blessings  of  grace.  For  this  is  the  great  con- 
trast which  it  pleased  God  to  establish — the 
blessings  of  nature  through  the  first,  the  blessings 
of  grace  through  the  Second  Adam.  These  are 
the  two  decrees  :  the  first  whereof  was  frustrated 
by  the  Fall,  whereas,  by  the  second  the  Fall  is 
remedied.  For  according  to  this  second  decree, 
whatever  spiritual  benefits  were  designed  for 
man's  race  are  embodied  in  the  Son  of  Man,  that 
He  might  be  the  new  "  first-born  of  every  crea- 
ture." Thus  is  the  last  first,  and  the  first  last; 
and  the  true  Joseph  is  found  to  be  that  real 
u  chosen  one,"  through  whom  all  his  brethren 
have  access  to  royal  favour. 

This  is  the  view  of  the  decree  of  Election,  which 
prevailed  from  the  first  in  the  Church.  It  is  set 
forth  in  the  clearest  terms  by  the  very  earliest  of 
the  Fathers.  "  The  All-seeing  God,  who  hath 
elected  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  us  through  Him 
to  be  a  peculiar  people."3  And  this  accordingly  is 
declared  in  the  New  Testament  to  be  the  fulfilment 
of  that  decree,  which  had  been  announced  in  the 
Old.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  declared  to  be  "  the 
elect,  m  whom  the  Father  is  well  pleased."4     And 

3  li  o  rtavorttrj;  ®sb$ — j  £x?.t$dusvo;  tbv  Kvpiovl^rsolv  Xpiarbv, 
xcul  r,uttj  dV  aiitov  £tj  Xabv  rttpiovaiov."  —  Clem.  Rom,  ad  Cor 
i.  58. 

4  Compare  Isaiah  xlii.  1,  and  St.  Matt.  xii.  18. 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  149 

this  election  is  extended  from  Him  to  others.  The 
decree,  of  which  the  first  Adam  had  been  the  sub- 
ject, had  contemplated  his  race  as  well  as  himself, 
since  how  else  could  the  earth  be  replenished  ?  al- 
beit that  to  infinite  Wisdom  the  result  must  from 
the  first  have  been  apparent :  but  respecting  the 
Second  Adam,  it  is  expressly  declared  that  in  His 
case  the  decree  of  mercy  would  not  be  equally  in- 
effectual. "  He  shall  see  His  seed,  He  shall  pro- 
long His  days."  "  He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of 
His  soul,  and  shall  be  satisfied."  It  was  predes- 
tined that  in  Him  should  be  gathered  together  that 
Gentile  Church,  of  which  the  election  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation  had  been  a  preparatory  shadow.  "  And 
now,  saith  the  Lord,  that  formed  Me  from  the 
womb,  to  be  His  servant — it  is  a  light  thing  that 
Thou  shouldst  be  My  servant  to  raise  up  the  tribes 
of  Jacob,  I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  to  the 
Gentiles,  that  Thou  mayest  be  My  salvation  unto 
the  ends  of  the  earth."  The  building  up  of  that 
universal  Church,  which  consists  of  all  living  mem- 
bers of  the  Incarnate  Mediator,  was  always  under- 
stood in  the  earliest  times  to  be  the  fulfilment  of  the 
decree  of  God's  Predestination.  "  Whereas  God 
had  taken  to  Himself  your  people,"  says  Justin 
Martyr  to  his  Jewish  opponent,  "  out  of  all  nations, 
an  useless,  disobedient,  and  unbelieving  race,  He 
has  now  shown  that  those  who  are  elected5  out  of 
every  nation  obey  His  counsel  through  Christ."6 
And  again,  "  we  are  no  contemptible  people,  but 
God  has  elected  us,  and  become  merciful  to  them 

5  "Electa;  sunt  gentium  nafionep,  ut  destrueretuv  perfidia  Ju- 
dseorum." — S.  Ambros.  on  Ps.  xliii. 

6  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  sec.  130     Id.  sec.  119. 


150 


which  asked  not  for  Him."  This  it  is,  then,  which 
the  Apostle  sets  forth,  when  he  explains  how  the 
whole  Church  is  included  in  the  operation  of  that 
merciful  decree,  which  assigned  a  new  Head  to  the 
human  race.  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of 
Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  blessed  us  with 
all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ, 
according  as  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Hun  before  the 
foundation  of  the  "world,  that  we  should  be  holy 
and  without  blame  before  Him  in  love ;  having 
predestinated  us  to  the  adoption  of  children  by  Je- 
sus Christ  to  Himself,  according  to  the  good  plea- 
sure of  His  will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  His 
grace,  wherein  He  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the 
Beloved.  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through 
His  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the 
riches  of  His  grace  ;  wherein  He  hath  abounded  to 
us  in  all  wisdom  and  prudence,  having  made 
known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  His  will,  according 
to  His  good  pleasure,  which  He  hath  purposed  in 
Himself:  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of 
times  He  might  gather  together  in  one,  all  things  in 
Christ." 

Now  respecting  this  predestined  election  of 
Christians  to  be  one  body  in  Christ,  there  are  two 
points  to  be  observed — First,  That  it  in  no  wise 
interferes  with  the  responsibility  of  man  ;  secondly, 
What  is  the  nature  of  that  safety,  which  it  is  said 
to  afford  ?  It  does  not  interfere  with  man's  re- 
sponsibility. For  it  has  been  stated  to  depend 
upon  that  law  of  Mediation,  whereby  all  blessings 
which  God  bestows  upon  men  are  given  through 
the  intervention  of  the  new  Head  of  humanity. 
"  There  is  one  Mediator  between  God   and  men, 


OF  DIVINE    DECREES.  151 

the  Man  Christ  Jesus."  Through  our  Baptism 
into  Him  is  that  nature  reconstituted  which  is 
transmitted  by  birth  from  our  first  Parent.  For  the 
law  of  Christ's  Mediation  not  only  refers  to  His 
actions  on  our  behalf  as  our  Advocate  with  the 
Father,  but  likewise  to  that  channel  which  He  has 
provided  in  His  own  humanity,  whereby  He  may 
bestow  heavenly  gifts  upon  men.  This  point  was 
brought  prominently  forward  in  the  Pelagian  con- 
troversy. The  Pelagians  were  ready  to  admit  that 
through  Christ's  Mediation  we  obtained  remission 
of  our  sins,  but  they  did  not  allow  the  necessity  of 
that  new  mean  of  connexion  with  the  Father, 
whereby  we  obtain  the  blessing  of  a  re-created  na- 
ture, through  baptismal  union  with  the  Humanity 
of  Christ.  The  Council  of  Milevis  therefore 
passed  a  censure  on  those  who  said,  "  that  the 
grace  of  God,  whereby  we  are  justified  through  Je- 
sus Christ  our  Lord,  avails  only  for  the  remission 
of  sins  past,  and  not  for  help  against  their  future 
commission."7  And  therefore  it  is  that  the  efficacy 
of  Baptism  formed  so  large  a  part  of  the  contro- 
versy between  St.  Augustin  and  his  opponents. 
But  although  the  Divine  nature  which  is  commu- 
nicated by  Baptism,  extends  as  widely  as  that  old 
nature  through  which  we  inherit  corruption,  yet  it 
does  not  so  far  re-create  us,  as  to  supersede  that 
principle  of  individuality  which  previously  existed. 
In  each  child  of  Adam  there  is  not  only  that  gene- 
ral nature,  which  we  have  in  common  with  our 
race,  but  likewise  that  principle  of  individual  ex- 
istence which  enables  us  to  speak  of  ourselves. 

7  Hard uin,  vol.  i.  p.  1218. 


152 

The  baptized  man  remains  the  same  individual, 
which  he  was  before  Baptism.  His  nature  may  be 
improved,  but  his  identity  is  unaffected.  The 
Apostle  speaks  to  those,  who  had  been  brought 
into  the  fold  of  Christ,  as  conscious  that  they  were 
bound  by  the  tie  of  human  personality  to  their  for- 
mer existence.  "  Remember  that  ye  being  in  times 
past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh — that  at  that  time  ye  were 
without  Christ.  But  now  in  Christ  Jesus  ye  who 
sometimes  were  far  off  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood 
of  Christ. "  Now  it  is  this  individual  personality, 
whereby  we  are  enabled  to  speak  of  ourselves,  with 
which  the  principle  of  responsibility  is  indissolubly 
connected.  We  discern  its  existence,  independent- 
ly of  the  Word  of  God,  through  that  law  of  con- 
sciousness which  is  bound  up  with  our  individual 
existence.  However  far,  therefore,  the  new  na- 
ture which  is  given  in  Christ  may  leaven  the  old 
— however  it  may  augment  our  power  of  suggest- 
ing to  ourselves  motives — whatever  influence  it 
may  exercise  over  the  will,  by  corroborating  it  in 
all  good  resolutions — yet  there  remains  a  principle 
of  responsibility,  which  cannot  be  detached  from 
ourselves.  This  responsibility  acted  in  one  way 
according  to  the  law  of  nature  ;  it  acts  in  another 
according  to  the  law  of  grace.  In  both  cases  its 
decisions  were  contingent,  in  that  they  depended 
upon  the  choice  of  a  responsible  being;  but  they 
were  not  the  less  foreseen  by  the  Supreme  Intelli- 
gence, and  were  linked,  therefore,  into  the  chain 
of  His  unalterable  counsels,  just  as  much  as  if 
they  had  been  wholly  irrespective  of  our  own  will. 
But  although  its  choice  is  foreseen,  and  though  it 
acts  at  different  times  under  circumstances  of  more 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  153 

or  less  advantage,  yet  the  principle  of  responsibi- 
lity itself  remains  untouched,  and  cannot  be  de- 
tached from  the  personality  of  God's  reasonable 
creatures. 

When  we  go  on  to  consider  the  nature  of  that 
safety,  which  is  promised  to  us  in  the  Christian 
kingdom,  we  must  remember  what  are  the  dangers, 
by  which  we  are  surrounded.  For  these  dangers 
do  not  arise  merely  from  our  own  weakness,  but 
from  the  assaults  of  external  enemies.  There  exists 
around  us  an  actual  kingdom  of  darkness,  which 
had  no  place,  indeed,  in  the  pure  nature  of  our  first 
parent,  but  which,  by  reason  of  their  own  sins  and 
his,  has  power  over  all  his  descendants.  Nothing 
is  more  plainly  declared  in  Scripture  than  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  danger,  and  men  who  watch  their 
own  hearts  will  see  reason  to  suppose  that  they  can 
trace  its  operations.  "  For  wTe  wrrestle  not  against 
flesh  and  blood,  but  against  principalities,  against 
powers,  against  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this 
world  against  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places." 
And  if  this  be  so,  we  have  ample  ground  for  desiring 
that  succour,  which  may  guard  us  from  such  as- 
saults. And  this  it  is,  which  the  Head  of  the 
Christian  Body  has  secured  for  His  members. 
When  He  "  beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fall  from 
heaven,"  He  conquered  for  His  members  as  well 
as  for  Himself.  To  this  external  aggression  He 
makes  especial  reference,  when  speaking  of  the 
security  of  His  servants.  u  I  give  unto  them  eter- 
nal life,  and  they  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall 
any  one  pluck  them  out  of  My  hand.  My  Father, 
which  gave  them  Me  is  greater  than  all,  and  no  one 
is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  My  Father's  hand." 


154 


Thus  is  the  decree  of  God's  predestination  ("My 
Father  which  gave  them  Me",)  and  the  assurance 
of  Christian  perseverance,  connected  with  preser- 
vation against  an  external  foe.  And  this  assertion 
is  wholly  beside  the  question,  what  use  may  be 
made  of  this  blessing.  It  leaves  untouched  the 
question  of  human  responsibility.  For  afterwards 
occurs  Our  Lord's  own  statement  of  the  manner  in 
which,  while  upon  earth,  He  had  afforded  this  pro- 
tection. "  While  I  was  with  them  in  the  world  I 
kept  them  in  Thy  name ;  those  that  Thou  gavest 
Me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the 
son  of  perdition."  Thus  does  it  appear  that  one 
who  was  within  the  sentence  of  God's  predesti- 
nation, so  far  as  to  be  given  to  Christ,  and  who, 
therefore,  was  kept  by  Christ  from  external  assaults, 
had  notwithstanding  become  the  son  of  perdition. 
So  that  we  may  receive  the  full  statement  of  God's 
predestination  and  of  the  perseverance  of  His  true 
servants,  without  in  any  wise  trenching  on  that  law 
of  responsibility,  wThich  in  every  circumstance  re- 
mains untouched.  The  course  of  the  Divine  deal- 
ings has  been  directed  in  conformity  with  the  mer- 
ciful decree  of  His  will,  to  provide  a  fresh  beginning 
of  man's  race  in  place  of  that  old  one,  in  whom  it 
originally  began.  Through  union  with  this  new 
Head  has  He  predetermined  to  give  security  against 
Satan's  assaults  to  Christ's  living  members.  This 
end  is  effected  through  that  calling,  acceptance, 
and  exaltation,  which  He  has  bestowed  upon  them 
through  the  ordinances  of  grace,  whereby  they  are 
engrafted  into  His  Church.  Thus  is  the  predesti- 
nation of  the  Head  consummated  in  the  Body. 
"For  whom  He  did  foreknow  He  also  did  predesti- 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  155 

nate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son,  that 
He  might  be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren. 
Moreover,  whom  He  did  predestinate,  them  He 
also  called:  and  whom  He  called,  them  He  also 
justified :  and  whom  He  justified,  them  He  also 
glorified.  What  shall  we  then  say  to  these  things  ? 
If  God  be  for  us,  who  can  be  against  us  ?  He  that 
spared  not  His  own  Son,  but  delivered  Him  up  for 
us  all,  how  shall  He  not  with  Him  also  freely  give 
ws  all  things  ?"  "  For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither 
death  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor 
powers,  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor 
height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature  shall  be 
able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is 
in  Christ  Jesus  Our  Lord." 

What,  then,  is  the  Church's  doctrine  of  Predes- 
tination, Election,  and  Perseverance,  but  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  fact  of  Mediation,  as  it  shines  re- 
flected in  the  mirror  of  the  Divine  Foreknowledge? 
Those  things  which  it  has  pleased  the  Almighty  to 
effect  upon  this  scene  of  time,  in  that  grand  trans- 
action between  Him  and  His  creatures,  it  has  been 
His  will  to  reveal  in  Holy  Writ  as  they  were  the 
subject  of  His  own  contemplation  and  decree, 
amidst  the  solemn  stillness  of  eternity.  Of  this  de- 
cree the  first  and  immediate  object  was  the  new 
Head  of  humanity,  and  in  and  through  Him  all 
His  believing  members.  For  "He  hath  chosen  us 
in  Him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  There- 
fore does  St.  Augustin  speak  of  "  the  Saviour,  the 
Mediator  between  God  and  man,"  as  "  the  especial 
light  of  predestination  and  grace."  In  our  Head, 
therefore,  let  us  discern  the  very  fountain  of  grace, 
whence  according  to  each  man's  measure  it  diffuses 


156  THE 

itself  to  all  His  members.  For  that  grace,  whereby 
the  whole  process  is  accomplished,  through  which 
every  faithful  man  becomes  a  Christian,  is  the  self- 
same principle  whereby  humanity  was  first  moulded 
into  Christ  in  Him  ;  by  the  same  Spirit  whereby 
the  one  was  born,  is  the  other  regenerate.  By  the 
same  Spirit,  whereby  the  one  has  forgiveness  of 
sins,  was  the  other  always  sinless.  These  wTere 
things  which  God  foreknew  that  He  would  accom- 
plish. The  predestination,  therefore,  of  the  saints 
is  that  doctrine  which  shone  in  the  Saint  of  saints 
with  such  transcendent  glory  ;  wThich,  who  there- 
fore, that  understands  rightly  the  oracles  of  truth, 
can  deny  ?  For  the  Lord  of  glory  Himself,  so  far 
as  the  Son  of  God  was  partaker  of  Humanity,  is  de- 
clared to  us  to  have  been  predestinated.  The 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  proclaims  at  the  opening  of 
his  Epistles,  "  Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ, 
called  to  be  an  Apostle,  separated  unto  the  Gospel 
of  God,  which  he  had  promised  before  by  His 
prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  concerning  His 
Son,  who  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David  according 
to  the  flesh,  who  was  predestinated  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  in  power,  according  iothe  Spirit  of  Holiness 
by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  Jesus  there- 
fore was  predestinated,  that  He,  who  was  to  be  the 
Son  of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  might  yet  be 
the  Son  ot  God  in  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of 
holiness,  because  He  was  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  the  Virgin  Mary.  This  wondrous  assumption 
of  humanity  by  God  the  Word  was  brought  about 
in  some  unspeakable  manner,  that  so  He  might 
truly  and  with  propriety  be  said  to  be  at  once  the 
Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  man — the  Son  of  man 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  157 

by  reason  of  the  humanity  which  He  had  assumed, 
the  Son  of  God  by  reason  of  that  only-begotten 
Deity  which  assumed  manhood — lest  the  truth  ot 
the  Trinity  might  be  obscured,  and  we  might  be- 
lieve that  there  was  a  fourth  God.  It  was  the  de- 
cree, therefore,  of  God's  predestination,  that  huma- 
nity should  receive  that  mighty  elevation,  than 
which  there  could  be  no  higher  stage  of  advance- 
ment ;  and  likewise  that  Deity  should  submit  to 
that  deepest  of  all  humiliations — participation  in 
the  weakness  of  flesh,  and  the  death  upon  the 
cross.  As  respecting  Him  alone,  therefore  there 
passed  that  decree  of  predestination,  whereby  he 
was  appointed  our  Head :  so  respecting  us,  being 
many,  is  there  a  like  decree  of  predestination, 
wheieby  we  are  appointed  to  be  His  members."8 

There  is  one  material  distinction,  however, 
which  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind,  when  we 
read  the  statements  of  the  Church's  early  writers 
respecting  the  decrees  of  God.  It  has  been 
stated  that  these  decrees  were  the  shadow  cast 
beforehand  by  that  momentous  system  of  Media- 
tion, which  took  effect  through  the  Incarnation 
of  Christ.  Now  there  are  two  ways,  in  which 
the  ancient  writers  speak  of  those  things  which 
were  decreed  by  God  in  Christ:  sometimes  they 
speak  of  them  in  regard  to  their  gift,  and  some- 
times in  regard  to  their  employment.  In  the  first 
case  they  simply  affirm  the  fact  of  the  gift ;  what 

8  "  Ip?a  est  igitur  prsedestinatio  sanctorum,  quae  in  Sancto 
sanctorum  maxime  claruit."  ''Sieut  ergo  prsedestinatus  est 
ille  unus,  ut  caput  nostrum  esset;  ita  multi  prtedestinati  sumus, 
ut  membra  ejus  e?semus." 

St.  Austin  follows  the  Vulgate  in  reading  Rom.  i.  4.  "Qui 
pradestinatus  est  Filius  Dei,"  &c. — De  Pried.  Sa?ic.  sec.  31. 

14 


158 

they  say  in  the  second  depends  upon  its  improve- 
ment. Looking  at  the  first,  they  speak  of  Saul 
and  Judas  as  participators  in  election,9  but  when 
they  speak  of  God's  Decrees  under  their  second 
character,  they  refer  to  those  cases,  in  which  the 
due  use  of  divine  gifts  leads  to  man's  final  salva- 
tion. Now,  in  exact  accordance  with  this  two- 
fold language  respecting  the  nature  of  a  state  of 
Election  and  Predestination,  there  is  a  corres- 
ponding diversity  in  their  statements  of  its  cause. 
When  they  look  only  at  the  gift,  they  refer  God's 
Decree  to  that  mere  mercy,  which  works  accord- 
ing to  the  counsel  of  His  own  sovereign  will. 
But  when  they  take  its  employment  also  into 
account,  they  speak  of  the  decree  of  God  as  in- 
fluenced by  a  foreknowledge  of  man's  conduct. 
In  this  case,  therefore,  the  sentence  passed  in  the 
Divine  Councils  is  an  anticipation  of  that  law,- by 
which  the  Giver  of  all  grace  has  declared  that 
He  is  guided  in  His  conduct  towards  His  crea 
tures :  "he  that  hath,  to  him  shall  be  given." 
Bearing  this  distinction  in  mind,  we  may  see  why 
God's  Decrees  are  sometimes  spoken  of  as  certain 
in  their  effect,  and  sometimes  as  liable  to  be 
modified  in  consequence  of  human  ingratitude  ;10 
why  the  good  are  saved  through  God's  predes- 
tined mercy  in  Christ,   and  through  the  gift  of 

9  "Blandiri  sibi  per  confessionem  non  potest,  quasi  sit  elcctus 
ad  glorias  premium  —  nam  et  Judam  inter  Apostolos  Dominus 
digit,"  &e. —  Cyprian  de  Unitate. 

"  Nee  statim,  qui  eligitur,  tentari  non  potest  ncc  perire  :  quia 
et  Saul  clectus  in  regem,  ct  Judas  in  apostolum,  suo  postea  vitio 
corruerunt." — Micron  in  Ezech.  xx. 

10  "Si  cum  dicis,  Praedestinatus  non  potest  damnari,  intelligas 
ita,  id  est,  non  potest  esse  ut  praedestinatus  sit  et  damnetur, 
vcrum  dicis." — Lib.  Sententiarum.  i.  40.  13. 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  159 

perseverance;  while  the  bad  cannot  charge  their 
failure  on  the  arbitrary  denial  of  what  was  essen- 
tial to  their  safety.  Not  only  are  these  considera- 
tions necessary,  if  we  would  make  different 
writers  of  the  ancient  Church  consistent  with 
one  another,  but  even  if  we  would  make  the 
same  writer  consistent  with  himself.  Thus  do 
St.  Ignatius  and  Hennas11  speak  of  the  Church 
as  owing  its  calling  simply  to  the  will  of  God, 
while  Clement13  of  Alexandria,  a  writer  of  the 
same  century,  speaks  of  it  as  comprising  those 
whom  God  "foreknew  would  be  righteous."  In 
the  former  instance  God's  Decree  is  viewed  in 
relation  only  to  the  gift  which  He  bestows  upon 
mankind  ;  in  the  latter,  His  Decree  is  thought  of 
as  extending  onward  into  that  ultimate  effect, 
which  results  from  it  in  the  case  of  the  obedient. 
This  is  still  more  manifest  if  we  consider  the  op- 
position which  would  otherwise  arise  between 
different  assertions  of  the  same  writer.  Thus 
does  Jerome  censure  Origen,  because  he  "  at- 
tempts to  prove  the  justice  of  God,  on  the  ground 
that  He  elects  each  person,  not  from  His  simple 
exercise  of  inherent  foreknowledge,  but  from  the 
merit  of  the  individuals  elected."  Whereas,  he 
says,  u  God  elected  us,  who  were  not  previously 
holy  and  immaculate,  in  order  that  hereafter  we 

11  Tw  rtpocapLdfievyj  rfpo  ouwvcoy, — iv  OeTirpatt,  tov  TTar'poj  xai 
\r",'  v  Xpecfou  tov  0JGU   ^uwi',  fg  tarjcX^ita  tq  ovay  if  'E$£ff<j> 

• — lgnm  ad  E])h.  sec.  i. 

"  Detis  virtute  sua  potenti  conditit  sanctum  ecclesiam  suam." 
—Past.  i.  1,  3. 

12  "  Tot's  rSq  xat  at  tray fitvovc,  ov$  rtpotopcrffv  u  Osog,  8(.xo.lov$ 
ilofxevovs  rtpo  xata^oXr^  xoopov  tyvwxujs." — Clem.  Alex.  Strom 
vii.  p.  900.  Oxf.  1715. 


160 


might  become  so."13  Yet  the  same  Jerome  says, 
"  those  of  whom  God  foresaw  that  they  would  be 
conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son  in  life,  He 
willed  also  should  be  conformed  to  it  in  glory."14 
Here  we  have  the  Decree  of  God  set  forth  in  one 
case  as  being  independent  of  men's  acts,  in  the 
other  as  being  contingent  upon  the  use  which 
they  make  of  it.  In  every  case,  therefore,  it  is 
the  system  of  Mediation  which  is  the  object  of 
God's  prevision ;  in  the  one  instance  extending 
its  blessings  unconditionally  to  mankind,  in  the 
other  leading  to  the  ultimate  salvation  of  those 
who  employ  it. 

And  this  is  still  more  manifest  when  we  turn  to 
that  period  of  the  Church's  history,  when  the  doc- 
trines of  Grace  were  brought  most  prominently  for- 
ward— the  contest,  namely,  which  was  carried  on 
by  St.  Augustin  against  the  Pelagians.  For  that 
controversy  did  not  turn  on  the  question  whether 
men  needed  divine  help,  which  Pelagius  did  not 
deny,  but  whether  the  help  which  they  were  ad- 
mitted to  require,  was  to  be  expected  through  the 
channel  of  nature,  or  the  channel  of  grace — whether 
it  was  to  be  referred  to  the  principles  of  our  creation 
through  the  first,  or  of  our  re-creation  through  the 
Second  Adam.  The  qualities  and  capacities  of  man 
are  so  plainly  God's  work,  his  affections  and  intel- 
lect are  so  entirely  dependent  upon  the  sustaining 
hand  of  their  author,  that  those  things  which  are 
brought  about  by  them,  might  be  said  to  be  brought 
about  by  a  power  which  is  bestowed  by  their  author. 

13  Hieron.  Comment,  in  E  plies,  i. 

14  Hieron.  Comment,  in  Rom.  viii.  29.  Other  passages  are 
quoted  in  Faber's  "Primitive  Doctrine  of  Election,"  p.  271, 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  161 

Pelagius,  indeed,  appeared  to  go  beyond  this  in  his 
admissions.  "  If  he  asserted  that  man  could  be 
perfect  without  the  help  of  God,"  said  his  friends 
at  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  "this  were  most  mis- 
chievous and  censurable ;  but  since  he  adds,  that 
this  cannot  be  attained  without  God's  help,  what 
do  you  say? — do  you  deny  God's  help?"15  Still, 
however,  all  his  concessions  come  back,  in  the  end, 
to  the  same  point — the  help  which  he  acknowledged 
was  bestowed  through  the  medium  of  nature,  and 
according  to  the  lawTsof  the  first  creation  ;  whereas, 
the  improvement  for  which  St.  Augustin  contended 
was  built  upon  a  new  principle ;  upon  the  re-crea- 
tion of  man  in  Christ."  "  The  Pelagians  assert," 
say  the  African  Bishops,  "that  the  grace  of  God 
lies  in  this  circumstance,  that  He  has  so  constituted 
and  created  man's  nature,  that  man  can,  by  his  own 
will,  fulfil  God's  law."16  And  again,  the  five 
Bishops  who  addressed  Pope  Innocent,  contrast  the 
statement  of  Pelagius,  "  that  the  nature  with  which 
man  was  created,  evinces  his  Creator's  grace," 
with  their  own  assertion,  "  that  assisting  grace  was 
revealed  and  given  through  the  Incarnation  of  the 
only-begotten  Son."17  Thus  did  the  whole  contro- 
versy turn  upon  the  fact,  whether  grace  was  a  result 
of  the  re-creation  of  man's  nature  through  Christ,  or 
whether  it  was  to  be  looked  for  through  the  channel 

w  Harduin,  i.  1208. 

16  Id.  i.  1214.  Vide  also  St.  Augustin's  Letter  to  Sixtus,  who 
was  afterwards  Pope  :  "  Abjieiatur  a  Christianorum  cordibus  ista 
fallacia:  nam  omnino  non  istam  gratiam  commendat  Apostolus, 
qua  creati  sumus  ut  homines  essemus,  scd  qua  justificati,  cum 
mali  homines  essemus.  Ista  est  enim  gratia  per  Jcsum  Christum 
Dominum  nostrum." — Ep.  cxeiv.  sec.  viii. 

17  Harduin,  i.  1226-8. 


162 


of  our  original  constitution.  And  therefore  the 
Church's  doctrine  on  this  subject  did  not  trench  in 
any  degree  upon  the  accountableness  of  man.  For 
if  the  Divine  Decrees  are  bound  to  that  system  by 
which  it  has  been  shown  that  man's  common  nature 
is  altered,  but  by  which  the  principle  of  responsibility 
is  left  untouched,  they  do  but  secure  that  free- 
agency,  which  is  only  perfectly  restored18  in  Christ. 
And  when  the  reference  to  God's  decrees  was  car- 
ried further,  and  they  were  spoken  of  in  their  ap- 
plication to  those  chosen  members  of  the  Lord's 
Body,  who  will  share  its  ultimate  advancement,  it 
was  never  forgotten  that  such  a  result  was  contin- 
gent upon  the  due  use  of  those  blessings,  which 
were  dependent  for  their  beginning  upon  man's  free 
election  into  Christ.  Thus  were  the  springs  of  re- 
sponsibility left  untouched,19  while  the  privileges  of 
the  Gospel  wTere  made  to  depend  exclusively  upon 
that  free  grace,  which  had  been  communicated  to 
humanity  in  the  Incarnate  Saviour. 

And  the  same  principles  were  involved  when  the 
controversy  went  deeper  into  the  mysterious  ground 
of  human  responsibility.  The  dispute  between  St. 
Augustin  and  Pelagius  had  been — whether  the  as- 
sistance of  God's  grace  was  bestowed  according  to 
the  system  of  Mediation,  or  the  system  of  nature. 


18  This  is  stated  in  that  collection  of  the  opinion  of  the  Koman 
Bishops,  which  was  put  out  under  the  authority  of  Celestine: 
"Nemo  nisi  per  Christum  libero  bene  utatur  arbitrio." — liar- 
duw,  i.  1255. 

19  Vide  the  statements  referred  to  Celestine  :  "  Quo  utique 
auxilio  et  munere  Dei  non  aufertur  liberum  arbitrium,  sod  libe- 
ratur."  "  Tanta  enim  erga  omncs  homines  est  bonitas  Dei,  ut 
nostra  velit  esse  mcrita,  quae  sunt  ipsius  dona,"  &c. — Harduin, 
i.  1257. 


CF    DIVINE    DECREES.  163 

Though  Pelagius  admitted  the  truth  of  Our  Lord's 
satisfaction  for  sin,23  yet  he  denied  that  whole  the- 
ory, which  supposes  divine  grace  to  be  commu- 
nicated through  the  Mediator  to  mankind.  But 
the  Church  accepted  with  one  consent  the  asser- 
tions of  St.  Augustin,  that  as  the  gifts  of  nature 
through  the  first,  so  were  the  gifts  of  grace  be- 
stowed upon  mankind  through  the  Second  Adam. 
All  spiritual  blessings  were  understood  to  be  be- 
stowed through  the  ordinances  of  the  Church  upon 
the  members  of  Christ's  Body.  This  was  the  ex- 
ternal medium  through  which  grace  was  bestowed 
by  God  upon  man.  But  when  this  was  admitted, 
there  arose  of  necessity  the  further  question,  By 
what  means  were  men  induced  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  Lord's  Body  ?  What  was  the  condition 
of  persons  before  Baptism  ?  Was  man's  dependence 
after  Baptism  to  be  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  before 
Baptism  the  principles  of  nature  ?  Was  there  such 
capacity  for  holiness  in  man  natural,  that  he  could 
of  himself  have  taken  the  first  step  towards  God  ? 
Yet  if  not,  it  would  seem  that  the  only  reason  why 
one  man  is  converted,  and  another  is  not,  must 
depend  upon  God's  decree  ;  and,  therefore,  that  the 
responsibility  of  man  must  be  proportionately  endan- 
gered. For  if  the  direct  object  of  God's  Decree  be 
that  decision  which  results  from  the  actings  of  man's 
compound  organization,  and  not  that  renewing 
influence  of  the  Incarnate  Mediator,  which  is  be- 
stowed upon  mankind  at  large  for  the  re-creation  of 
his  nature,  it  does  not  appear  how  individuals  can 

20  "  Justificatio  per  peccatoram  veniam." — Op.  Imper.  c.     Fix- 
lian.  ii.  165. 


164  the  church's  doctrine 

be  held  responsible21  for  that,  over  which  they  have 
no  control.  From  this  difficulty  Augustin23  had  at 
one  time  been  disposed  to  escape,  by  assigning  a 
meritorious  efficacy  to  men's  faith,  which  he  denied 
to  their  actions.  This  error  is  not  uncommon  among 
those  who  speak  much  of  fai;h,  without  discerning 
its  true  ground  of  importance  ;  namely,  that  it  is 
correlative  to  that  external  system  of  Mediation, 
whereby  a  real  change  has  been  effected  in  the 
position  of  mankind.  We  are  saved  only  by  faith 
in  Christ,  not  because  faith  is  of  more  value  in  itself 
than  the  other  parts  of  our  constitution,  but  by 
reason  of  the  worthless  nature  of  those  acts  of  our 
own,  of  wThich  sense  acquaints  us  ;  whereas  those 
acts  of  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  the  objects 
of  faith,  are  of  countless  efficacy.  St.  Augustin's 
view  of  faith  had  rested  apparently  upon  a  different 
principle  ;  he  had  observed  that  faith,  when  looked 
at  in  itself,  bears  the  same  relation  to  its  results, 
which  motives  bear  to  actions ;  and  while  he 
affirmed  that  the  second  need  the  help  of  grace,  he 
supposed  that  power  over  our  own  motives  could 
not  be  separated  from  the  free-agency  of  man.  This, 
however,  was  plainly  to  attribute  men's  conversion 
to  their  own  merits,  and  it  was  contrary  to  those 
statements  of  Scripture,  which  refer  faith  to  the  gift 
of  God.     And  St.  Augustin  spoke  a  wholly  different 

21  "  Si  igitur  non  est  Dei  gratia,  quomodo  salvat  mundum  1 
Et  si  non  est  liberum  arbitrium,  quomodo  judicat  numdum." — • 
Aug.  Ep.  214.  2. 

11  "  Quod  credimus  nostrum  est.  Quod  autem  bonum  ope- 
ramur,  illius,  qui  credentibus  in  se  dat  Spiritum  Sanctum." 
'•  Non  quidam  Deus,  elegit  opera,  qute  ipse  largitur,  cum  dat 
Spiritual  Sanctum,  ut  per  charitatem  bona  opercmur  ;  sed  tamen 
elegit  fidem." — Explicatio  Prop,  dc  Epistola  ab  Rom.  written 
a.  d.394. 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  16b 

language,  when  the  controversy  with  Pelagius  led 
him  into  deeper  views  of  truth.  He  sums  up  the 
dispute  between  them  at  the  end  of  his  treatise  on 
grace  ;  "  If  Pelagius  will  allow  not  only  that  the 
human  faculties,  irrespective  of  our  will  and  acts, 
but  that  our  will  and  acts  themselves  are  divinely 
assisted,  and  so  assisted,  that  without  such  assist- 
ance we  can  neither  will  well,  nor  act  well  ;  and 
that  the  mean  whereby  we  are  assisted  is  the  grace 
of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  Our  Lord,  whereby 
He  makes  us  righteous  through  His,  and  not  through 
our  righteousness ;  so  that  our  true  righteousness  is 
that  which  is  given  us  by  Him  ;  no  controversy 
respecting  the  assistance  by  God's  grace,  so  far  as  I 
understand,  will  be  left  between  us."23 

At  this  point  it  was,  then,  that  the  dispute  broke 
out  between  St.  Austin  and  the  Semi-Pelagians. 
The  need  of  God's  grace  in  Christ,  as  aiding  the 
actions  of  men,  they  readily  admitted.  But  there 
must  first,  they  said,  be  a  surrender  of  himself  on 
the  part  of  man,  in  order  to  enable  him  to  profit 
by  God's  grace.  And  this  first  movement  must 
of  necessity  lie  in  his  own  nature.  The  gifts  of 
God  flowed  forth,  they  allowed,  through  the  chan- 
nel of  Christ's  Manhood,  like  the  stream  to  thirsty 
Israel ;  but  man  must  stoop  down  to  profit  by  the, 
draught.  This,  however,  were  to  assert  an  inde- 
pendence of  the  Creator,  which  the  creature  has  no 
pretention  to  advance.  It  had  been  objected  against 
the  Pelagians  by  St.  Jerome,24  that  they  supposed 

23  "  De  Gratia,"  sec.  xlvii. 

24  Vide  Hieron.  Ep.  ad  Ctesiphontem.  "  Deus  cujus  occulta 
potentia  cuncta  penetrans  incontaminabili  prsesentia  facit  esso 
quicquid  aliquo  modo  est,  in  quantumcunque  est,  quia  nisi  faci- 
ente  illo  non  talc  vel  tale  esset ;  sed  prorsus  esse  non  posset.'"' 
— De  Civitaie  Dei.  xii.  25. 


166 

the  world  to  have  been  framed  by  a  Divine  Artificer, 
and  then  to  be  left  to  pursue  its  course  through  the 
agency  of  those  principles,  which  had  been  origin- 
ally infused.  Whereas  in  reality  there  exists  no 
power,  properly  speaking,  but  the  will  of  spiritual 
beings  ;  and  no  power  in  material  substance,  save 
that  will  of  their  Author,  which  still  supports,  as  it 
first  called  them  into  being.  Now  the  same  prin- 
ciple, which  is  true  in  the  natural  world,  is  ap- 
plicable to  the  spiritual.  Here  likewise,  the 
principles  of  Theism  do  not  allow  us  to  exclude  the 
agency  of  God,  when  it  is  not  excluded  by  the 
peculiar  constitution  of  accountable  beings.  While 
we  bear  in  mind,  therefore,  that  responsibility  im- 
plies the  existence  of  a  power  of  original  action,  we 
cannot  exclude  the  influence  of  God's  agency  from 
any  good  actions  of  His  rational  creatures.  But 
according  to  what  law  is  this  agency  exerted  ? 
Here  the  very  question  comes  back  upon  us,  which 
we  met  with  before  in  the  controversy  with  the 
Pelagians.  Is  this  pre-disposing  influence  of  the 
Divine  power,  which  has  the  wills  of  responsible 
agents  for  its  immediate  object,  bestowed  through 
the  system  of  nature,  or  the  system  of  Mediation  ? 
St.  Austin  maintained  that  it  was  bestowed  through 
the  latter.  As  the  Second  Person  in  the  Ever- 
Blessed  Trinity  is  the  source  of  that  natural  light, 
which  still  dwells  even  in  the  darkened  consciences 
of  our  fallen  race,  so  still  more  is  it  from  His 
influence,  and  in  anticipation  of  that  light  which 
through  full  communion  with  Him  He  bestows 
upon  the  true  members  of  His  Body,  that  the  dawn- 
ing and  imperfect  glimpses  of  the  coming  day  draw 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  167 

men  to  His  presence.  The  especial  gro  und  on 
which  St.  Austin  rests  his  proof  of  the  efficacy  of 
preventing  grace,  is  that  it  is  implied  by  those 
prayers,  wnich  the  Church  continually  offered  for 
the  conversion  of  unbelievers.  For  unless  this 
were  a  thing  which  was  brought  about  by  God's- 
power,  and  not  by  the  unaided  exertion  of  indi- 
vidual will,  why  should  we  ask  God  to  grant  it  ? 
Why  should  we  petition  Him  for  that,  which  He 
had  put  out  of  His  own  power  ?  Now  this  princi- 
ple is  especially  applied  by  Celestine,25  when  sum- 
ming up  the  Church's  decision  against  the  Semi- 
Pelagians,  to  whose  prayers,  which  the  Church 
offers  through  Sacramental  union  with  Christ ;  and 
the  admission  of  Catechumens  to  her  full  privileges 
by  Baptism  is  stated  to  be  its  result.  So  that 
although  the  gift  of  grace,  which  the  Mediator 
bestows  through  the  channel  of  His  man's  nature, 
exercises  an  attractive  influence  in  those  wrho  are 
not  yet  members  of  His  Body,  yet  it  is  through  this 
medium  only  that  the  blessing  is  transmitted. 

This  it  is,  then,  which  was  asserted  in  that  fa- 
mous Council  of  Orange,  which  gives  us  the  final 
result  of  the  Church's  judgment  on  these  momen- 
tous questions.  It  expressly  refers  preventing 
grace  in  those  who  are  not  Christians,  to  that 
same  anticipatory  influence  of  the  Incarnate  Me- 
diator, on  which  were  built  the  hopes  of  the  gene- 

25 "  Prater  eas  sanctiones,  quibus  nos  piissimi  patres  ad 
Christi  gratiam  referre  docuerunt ;  obsecrationum  quoque  sacer- 
dutalium  sacramenta  respieiamus — ut  legem  credendi  lex  statuat 
supplicandi."  "  Ut  denique  catechumenis  ad  regenerationis 
sacratnenta  perductis,  ccelistis  aula  a  ssericordise  reseretur." — 
Harduin,  i.  1257. 


168 

rations  which  preceded  His  Advent.  And  it  sums 
up  its  protest  against  the  Semi-Pelagian  doctrines 
in  these  two  assertions — first,  that  all  the  baptized 
by  the  grace  given  to  them  in  Baptism,  have 
through  Christ's  help  the  means  of  salvation  ;  se- 
condly, that  it  is  a  detestable  doctrine  to  suppose 
that  any  persons  are  predestinated  to  evil  by  Di- 
vine power.23  Now  the  second  of  these  positions 
is  a  distinct  nroof  that  the  Fathers  at  Orange  did 
not  consider  that  the  ultimate  determinations  of 
men  were  the  first  and  immediate  object  of  a 
Divine  Decree,  since  it  is  unquestionable  that 
these  last  determinations  are  often  evil.  And  on 
the  other  hand,  we  may  learn  from  the  first  state- 
ment what  they  supposed  to  be  the  object  of  the 
Divine  Predestination — namely,  that  Body  of 
Christ,  to  which  through  His  Mediation,  He  trans- 
mitted in  measure  those  gifts  of  grace,  of  which 
He  was  Himself  the  natural  possessor.  So  that 
we  are  led  back  again  to  the  position  before  at- 
tained. Election,  Predestination,  and  Perse- 
verance, w7ere  supposed  by  the  Church  to  be 
conceptions,  which  existed  from  eternity  in  the 
Divine  Mind,  and  wThich  were  acted  out  in  that 
majestic  economy  of  the  Divine  dealings,  which 
had  its  commencement  in  the  incarnation  of  the 
Son  of  God.  They  express  that  law,  whereby  a 
fresh  hope  wras  aiforded  to  the  fallen  race  of  man 

20  "  Hoc  secundum  fidcm  catholicam  credimus,  quod  accepta 
per  baptismum  gratia,  omnes  baptizati,  Christo  auxiliante  et  co- 
operante,  qure  ad  salutem  animse  pertinent,  possint  et  dcbcant, 
si  fideliter  laborare  voluerint,  adimplere.  Aliquos  vero  ad  malum 
divina  potentate  praedestinatosesse,  nori  solum  non  credimus,  sed 
ctiam,  si  sunt  qui  tatum  malum  credere  velint,  cum  omni  detes- 
tatione  illis  anathema  dicimus." — Harduin's  Co?i.  ii.  1101. 


OF   DIVINE    DECREES.  'iG'i 

through  the  re-creation  of  his  nature  in  Christ 
Jesus.  Regard  them,  therefore,  in  reference  to 
the  gifts  bestowed,  and  they  are  spoken  of  as  re- 
sulting exclusively  from  that  unmerited  mercy  of 
God,  which  chooses  things  which  are  not,  as 
though  they  were.  But  look  at  them  in  reference 
to  their  employment,  and  that  principle  of  respon- 
sibility must  not  be  left  out  of  account,  which, 
though  unable  of  itself  to  do  good,  must  yet  as- 
sent to  the  good  which  is  done  for  it.  "  Tolle 
liberum  arbitrium,  et  non  erit,  quod  salvetur ; 
tolle  gratiam,  et  non  erit,  uncle  salvetur. "  Leave 
out  either,  and  the  existence  of  man  would  be  a 
riddle,  and  he  would  no  longer  have  a  consistent 
place  in  the  Universe  of  God. 

Now,  what  treatment  did  this  systen  of  doctrine 
meet  with,  when  it  was  re-cast  by  the  powerful 
intellect  of  the  Genevese  Reformer  ?  He  at  once 
assailed  the  existence  of  responsibility  by  assert- 
ing that  the  immediate  object  of  the  Divine  De- 
crees was  the  ultimate  decision  in  man,  and  not 
the  reconstruction  of  his  nature.  Thus  did  he 
profess  to  vindicate  the  supremacy  of  the  Creator, 
while  in  reality  he  exonerated  the  creature  from 
obedience.  For  duty  cannot  exist,  when  respon- 
sibility is  extinguished.  And  this  is  the  necessary 
result  when  the  employment  as  well  as  the  gift  of 
grace  is  supposed  to  be  the  subject  of  a  decree 
which  is  wholly  irrespective  of  the  conduct  of  the 
creature.  So  that  the  result  of  transferring  the 
decrees  of  God  from  the  scheme  of  Mediation  at 
large  to  the  conduct  of  individuals,  was  in  reality, 
to  leave  men  as  free  from  accountableness  as  the 
beasts.  Now  it  .is  an  obvious  objection  to  this 
15 


170 

system,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  world  which  we  inhabit.  The  doctrines 
of  Necessity  as  Bishop  Butler  has  shown  conclu- 
sively, cannot  be  reduced  to  practice.  They  are 
incompatible  with  the  conduct  which  men's  wants 
compel,  and  their  conscience  witnesses.  They  are 
fatal  to  the  existence  of  praise  and  blame,  to  the 
justice  of  reward  and  punishment.  When  Calvin 
kindled  the  flames  which  consumed  Servetus  he 
gave  a  proof  of  the  reality  of  his  belief  in  those 
principles,  which  his  famous  third  book  of  Insti- 
tutes cannot  do  away.  But  how  was  it,  then, 
that  a  man  of  Calvin's  great  penetration  should 
have  been  betrayed  into  those  excesses,  which 
earned  for  him  from  the  milder  Melancthon  the  title 
of  the  Zeno  of  modern  times?  It  could  not  have 
been  merely  the  boldness  of  his  intellect,  or  the 
harshness  of  his  temper,  which  induced  him  to 
found  his  system  on  the  principles  of  Fatalism. 
The  "horrible  decretum"  must  have  had  some 
peculiar  charm  for  him.  And  such,  no  doubt,  i1 
had  in  that  singular  aid  which  it  gave  to  his  the- 
ological scheme,  whereby  it  enabled  him  to  di : 
pense  with  the  whole  theory  of  that  Church  systeit, 
which  in  practice  he  had  set  himself  to  overthrow. 
Let  it  be  allowed  that  God's  Decrees  had  relation 
solely  to  the  decisions  of  His  separate  creatures, 
that  these  decisions  were  forced  upon  individuals 
by  some  external  law,  independently  of  their  own 
participation,  and  the  whole  plan  of  ordinances, 
which  had  been  provided  in  the  Church — the 
means  of  Sacramental  union  with  Christ,  of  in- 
herence in  His  Sacred  Body — might  at  once  be 
dispensed  with       And  now  it  may  be   seen  what 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  171 

Calvin  gained  by  substituting  the  actions  of  indi- 
viduals, as  the  object  of  the  Divine  Decrees,  in 
place  of  the  Mediation  of  Christ.  His  grand  ob- 
ject, in  which  he  led  the  way  among  the  Reform- 
ers, was  the  destruction  of  the  whole  ecclesiastical 
system  of  the  Church.  Now,  that  which  renderec. 
the  Church  system  so  precious,  which  indisposed 
devout  men  to  touch  it,  even  when  its  luxuriance 
might  with  advantage  be  pruned  away,  was  that 
it  was  the  appointed  means  of  bestowing  those 
hallowed  gifts  which  included  men  among  the 
number  of  the  elect,  and  gained  for  those  who 
duly  used  them  the  predestined  blessings  of  salva- 
tion. To  get  rid,  therefore,  of  the  treasure  which 
was  enshrined  in  the  Church's  ordinances  was  to 
render  the  ordinances  themselves  contemptible. 
And  thus  did  Calvin  take  the  true  course  for 
weakening  men's  value  for  the  offices  of  the 
Church,  when  he  persuaded  them  that  the  pro- 
mises of  Scripture  did  not  refer  to  the  privileges 
of  grace,  but  to  an  arbitrary  pre-appointment  to 
glory. 

But  with  this  gain  there  was  a  corresponding 
loss.  For  since  the  Divine  Decrees  were  in  rea- 
lity a  reflexion  cast  beforehand  by  the  facts  of 
Mediation,  it  was  impossible  to  destroy  their  true 
character,  without  obscuring  men's  perception  of 
that  great  doctrine  with  which  they  were  con- 
nected. And  consequently  the  system  of  Calvin 
has  a  direct  tendency  to  conceal  from  men  a  large 
part  of  the  scheme  of  Mediation.  For  since  God's 
Decrees  were  no  longer  looked  upon  as  the  law, 
by  which  He  dealt  with  those  who  were  members 
cf  His  Son's  Body,  but  were  an  independent,  an- 


172 

tecedent  Decree  of  the  Great  Creator,  they  plainly 
led  men  to  look  away  from  the  system  of  grace  to 
the  system  of  nature.  And  herein  does  Calvinism 
touch  on  that  very  error  of  Pelagianism,  to  which 
"t  professes  to  be  most  opposed.  As  the  system 
of  Arminius,  if,  indeed,  it  supposes  man's  election 
to  grace  to  be  dependent  on  foreseen  actions,  as- 
signs too  much  to  the  desert  of  men,  so  the  sys- 
tem of  Calvin,  by  resting  the  individual  actions  of 
men  on  the  Decree  of  the  Creator,  irrespective  of 
that  real  re-construction  of  their  nature  which  is 
wrought  in  Christ,  does  not  rest  man's  safety  suf- 
ficiently on  the  work  of  Mediation.  It  is  true  that 
Calvin  professes  to  ground  God's  Decrees  on  the 
merits  of  Christ,  and  on  the  sacrifice  which  was 
offered  upon  the  Cross.  But  what  is  here  com- 
plained of  is,  that  though  he  allows  what  Christ 
does  on  man's  behalf  towards  God,  yet  that  His 
system  blinds  him  to  what  Christ  does  on  God's 
behalf  towards  His  brethren.  For  he  supposes 
man's  salvation  to  be  spoken  of  in  Scripture,  as 
though  it  were  the  result  of  a  Decree  which  acts 
immmediately  upon  man,  irrespective  of  that 
series  of  acts  whereby  the  Humanity  of  Christ  in- 
fuses itself  as  a  supernatural  seed  through  man's 
nature.  So  that  Our  Lord's  sufferings  for  man 
are  looked  upon  as  a  mere  arbitrary  act ;  and  are 
not  grounded  upon  that  relation  to  mankind,  which 
grows  out  of  His  character  as  the  Second  Adam. 
And  this  want  of  coherence  and  completeness  in 
his  system  has  opened  a  door  to  Socinianism,  from 
which,  as  we  know  by  history,  even  the  strong  in- 
tellect of  Calvin  has  been  unable  to  guard  his 
disciples. 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  173 

The  foregoing  statements  afford  a  ready  crite- 
rion, by  which  we  may  discriminate  the  system  of 
Calvin  from  that  of  the  Church.  Not  that  we 
should  find  in  him,  much  less  in  his  followers, 
such  rigid  adherence  to  his  intellectual  theory,  as 
absolutely  to  exclude  all  expressions  drawn  from 
the  Church's  ordinary  teachings  ;  but  the  lan- 
guage of  his  theory,  looked  at  in  itself,  is  precise 
and  distinctive.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that 
the  gifts  of  God  are  but  the  acting  out  of  that  sys- 
tem, which  is  revealed  in  the  scriptural  statement 
of  His  counsels.  Now,  if  the  Decrees  of  God  are 
not  associated,  as  the  Church  supposes,  with  the 
system  of  Our  Lord's  Mediation — if  their  imrae- 
ate  object  be  not  the  reception  and  employment 
of  the  gifts  of  grace,  but  the  actions  of  individuals, 
it  is  plain,  that  no  acceptance  can  be  given  to 
that  Sacramental  system,  which  supposes  divine 
influences  to  be  communicated  through  union 
with  Our  Lord's  Body.  God's  gifts  will  be  looked 
at  as  an  immediate  and  independent  donation 
conferred  by  the  Creator  on  His  creatures,  irre- 
spective of  that  medium  of  communication  which 
hns  been  provided  in  the  Humanity  of  Christ. 
Whatever  advantages  may  have  been  obtained 
through  those  acts  which  were  performed  by  Our 
Lord  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  no  further  need 
will  now  exist  for  the  "  One  Mediator  between 
God  and  men,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus."  The  Su- 
preme Governor  may  of  course  bestow  spiritual 
gifts,  simultaneously  with  the  exhibition  of  Sacra- 
ments ;  but  no  peculiar  connexion  can  be  sup- 
posed to  tie  the  two  together.  For  their  con- 
nexion depends  wholly  upon  this  principle — tha* 
.  15* 


174 


the  channel  through  which  heavenly  blessings 
flow  forth  is  the  Humanity  of  Christ.  Abstract 
this  circumstance,  which  depends  upon  a  super- 
natural series  of  relations,  and  the  peculiar  efficacy 
of  Sacraments  must  be  rested  only  upon  the  natu- 
ral fitness  of  external  emblems  to  convince  the 
intellect  and  affect  the  heart.  Here,  then,  is  the 
first  characteristic  of  the  Calvinistic  theory  :  its 
rejection  of  that  Sacramental  system,  by  which 
the  blessings  of  Mediation  are  distributed  through 
the  Body  of  Christ.  Its  second  is  the  denial  of 
any  gift  of  grace,  except  to  those  who  shall  finally 
be  saved.  This  is  the  necessary  consequence  of 
the  view  which  it  takes  of  the  doctrine  of  Decrees. 
For  God's  purposes  cannot  be  defeated:  the 
Word  which  cometh  out  of  His  mouth  cannot  re- 
turn in  vain.  Now,  if  His  Decrees  do  not  refer, 
as  the  Church  supposes,  to  the  re-creation  of  our 
common  nature  in  Christ,  but  are  a  mode  of  su- 
perseding the  springs  of  individual  resolution, 
they  would  be  frustrated,  supposing  it  were  neces- 
sary to  take  any  account  of  the  principle  of  hu- 
man responsibility.  For  their  object  is  the  ulti- 
mate decision  of  man,  and  not  that  reconstruction  of 
his  nature,  which  assumes  that  his  accountableness 
remains  undiminished.  God's  grace  is  not  sup- 
posed to  be  given,  that  the  members  of  Christ 
may  serve  Him  according  to  that  new  law  of 
liberty,  which  has  superseded  their  old  relation  to 
the  corrupt  Adam;  but  in  consequence  of  an  ar- 
bitrary decree,  which  marks  out  some  of  the 
children  of  men  for  death,  and  others  for  salva- 
tion. So  that  a  belief  that  any  gifts  of  grace  are 
bestowed  where  there  is  no  certainty  of  salvation, 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  175 

is  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  theory  of  Calvin. 

And  here  it  may  be  asked  whether  the  author 
of  such  a  system  had  any  right  to  claim  the  sanc- 
tion of  that  greatest  mind  in  the  ancient  Church 
— so  rich,  profound,  and  affectionate  —  whose 
works,  next  to  the  sacred  writings,  have  been  the 
favourite  study  of  all  following  generations.  For 
while  Calvin  mentions,  with  evident  satisfaction, 
that  the  majority  of  ancient  writers  had  been 
wholly  unacquainted  with  that  theory,  which  the 
force  of  his  intellect  had  enabled  him  to  discover, 
he  yet  refers  to  St.  Augustin,  as  one  who  was 
universally  admitted  to  take  the  same  view  as 
himself  of  the  Decrees  of  God.  I  will  not  claim 
for  the  Bishop  of  Hippo  an  exemption  from  error, 
to  which  himself  made  no  pretensions.  The 
season  of  distress  and  perplexity,  in  which  he 
lived,  when  the  ancient  forms  of  social  life  were 
falling  to  pieces  under  the  rude  shock  of  the 
Northern  Barbarians,  tended  especially  to  fix  his 
thoughts  on  that  order  and  stability  which  can  be 
found  only  in  the  purposes  of  God.  What  wonder, 
as  he  heard  on  his  dying  bed  of  the  excesses  to 
which  his  own  city  was  just  about  to  be  a  victim, 
if  his  last  works  should  show  that  be  was  medi- 
tating, like  our  own  Hooker,  on  the  order  and  har- 
mony of  the  heavenly  world,  and  that  he  found  rest 
in  the  contemplation  of  those  unfailing  Decrees, 
which  have  been  the  comfort  of  so  many  good 
men  amidst  the  perplexities  and  reverses  of 
Christ's  earthly  kingdom.  It  was  natural,  per- 
haps, that  he  should  attach  to  them  a  dispropor- 
tionate importance,  when  amidst  those  wild  out 


176 


cries  with  which  the  Vandals  had  filled  northern 
Africa,  he  beheld  them, 

"  Calm  as  the  march  of  some  majestic  cloud, 
Which  o'er  wild  scenes  of  ocean-war, 
Holds  its  still  course  in  Heaven  afar." 

But  even  admitting  that  St.  Ausmstin  was 
betrayed  occasionally  into  incautious  expressions, 
as  Jeremy  Taylor  and  others  have  imagined,  yet 
the  principles  which  have  been  adduced,  amply 
vindicate  him  from  the  charge  of  coinciding  with 
Calvin.  For  he  distinctly  asserts  that  spiritual 
gifts  are  bestowed  even  upon  those  who  are  not 
finally  penitent,  and  he  maintains  in  the  fullest 
manner  that  doctrine  of  Sacramental  grace,  which 
the  theory  of  Calvin  was  intended  to  discard.  It 
has  already  been  shown  that  the  Regeneration  of 
infants  is  a  decisive  test,  by  which  to  ascertain 
men's  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  Our  Lord's  Media- 
tion. Since  in  this  case  the  human  receiver  can 
contribute  nothing,  its  whole  efficacy  must  of  ne- 
cessity be  thrown  upon  the  action  of  its  Divine 
Giver.  So  that  it  enables  us  to  ascertain  whether 
men  suppose  any  thing  to  be  really  effected  by 
those  spiritual  gifts,  which  have  their  channel  in 
Our  Lord's  Humanity.  Now  on  this  point  St. 
Austin  speaks  so  distinctly,  that  Mr.  Goode  him- 
self is  compelled  to  admit  him  to  receive  the 
doctrine.  What  can  be  more  decisive  than  such 
passages  as  the  following  ?  "  We  say  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  baptized  infants,  although 
they  know  it  not.  For  they  are  ignorant  of  it, 
although  it  is  in  them,  as  they  are  ignorant  of 
their   own   mind.      For  it  lies   in  them,  as  yet 


OF    DIVINE    DECREES.  177 

unable  to  be  used,  like  some  buried  spark,  io  be 
quickened  by  increasing  years."'-7  Or  again, 
"It  is  matter  of  the  utmost  wonder,  that  to  some 
of  His  sons,  -whom  He  has  regenerated  in  Christ, 
to  whom  He  has  given  faith,  hope,  and  charity, 
God  does  not  give  perseverance."23  We  need 
not  be  surprised,  therefore,  at  finding  that  he 
speaks  of  the  blessing  of  Election-9  as  conferred 
through  the  ministration  of  Baptism.  And  his 
example  illustrates  the  rule,  by  which  it  may  be 
decided  whether  those  who  profess  agreement 
with  Calvin,  are  really  able  to  accord  with  the 
English  Church.  For  it  is  indifferent  whether 
the  charge  which  has  been  brought  against  St. 
Augustin  be  well-grounded  or  no,  seeing  that  his 
error,  if  it  existed,  was  only  one  of  philosophy, 
and  did  not  affect. his  religious  faith.  For  by 
affirming  the  reality  of  Baptismal  grace,  he  main- 
tained the  great  truth  of  Our  Lord's  Mediation. 
And  this  is  a  test  of  universal  applicability.30  Are 


27  "Dicimus  ergo  in  baptizatis  parvulis,  quamvis  id  neseiant, 
habitare  Spiritum  Sanctum.  Sic  enim  eum  nescient,  quamvis 
sit  in  eis,  quamadmodum  nesciunt  et  mentem  suam;  cujus  in 
eis  ratio,  qua  uti  nondum  possunt,  velut  quaedam  scintilla  sopita 
est,  excitanda  aetatis  accessu." — Epist.  clxxxvii.  8. 

2S  De  Corrept.  et  Grat.  sec.  viii. 

23  Op.  Imperf.  c.  Jul.  i.  38,  39. 

30  '•  The  ancient  predestinarians  never  questioned  the  cer- 
tainty of  Regeneration  in  Baptism,  hecause  this  doctrine  was 
consistent  with  their  theory.  For  though  they  maintained  that 
only  the  elect  or  predestinate  are  endued  with  the  gift  of  per- 
severance to  the  end,  and  will  be  finally  saved,  yet  they  be- 
lieved that  God  bestows  at  His  pleasure  every  other  kind  and 
measure  of  grace  on  those  persons,  from  whom  He  withholds 
this  special  grace  of  perseverance.  They  therefore  held,  in  com- 
mon with  the  rest  of  the  Church,  that  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and 


178 

there  any,  whose  minds  dwell  exclusively  on  the 
beauty  and  harmony  of  the  Divine  Decrees, 
whose  habit  is  to  refer  every  thing  to  God's  pur- 
pose, but  whose  language  does  not  do  justice  to 
the  importance  of  human  responsibility  ? — still  if 
the  error  be  only  one  of  philosophy,  if  it  does  not 
lead  them  to  detract  from  the  reality  of  the  Me- 
diation of  Christ,  if  they  admit  that  Sacramental 
system  through  which  the  Incarnate  Son  has 
made  His  Humanity  the  channel  of  heavenly 
gifts,  they  may  be  bad  reasoners,  but  sound 
Christians.  But  if  their  theory  induces  them  to 
deny  the  reality  of  those  gifts,  which  are  be- 
stowed through  Sacraments  on  the  members  of 
Christ — if  they  will  not  recognize  the  blessings 
of  that  renewed  nature,  whereby  the  Second 
Adam  restores  what  was  corrupted  by  the.  first 
(of  all  wmich  the  Regeneration  of  Infants  has  been 
shown  to  be  the  test) — how  can  they  hold  the 
great  truth  of  Our  Lord's  Mediation,  or  believe 
those  assertions  of  the  Prayer-Book,  to  which 
they  are  required  to  assent  ? 

the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  generally  bestowed  in  Baptism," 
&c.  "  This  was  Augustin's  Doctrine,"  &c. — Bishop  Bethellon 
Regeneration*  cap.  ix.  p.  140. 


THE    CHURCH'S    SERVICE,    ETC.  179 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  FORMULARIES  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 
WERE  NOT  DRAWN  UP  BY  CALVINISTS. 

It  has  been  shown  in  the  preceding  Chapter 
that  the  Primitive  Doctrine  of  absolute  Decrees  is 
not  at  variance  with  the  truth  of  Baptismal  Re- 
generation :  it  remains  to  show  in  the  concluding 
Chapters,  first,  that  those  who  drew  up  the 
Church's  Formularies,  had  not  adopted  that  pe- 
culiar theory  on  the  subject  of  Decrees,  which 
goes  by  the  name  of  Calvinism  ;  and,  secondly, 
that  such  Calvinism  as  was  once  prevalent  in  the 
English  Church,  is  no  justification  for  those  par- 
ties in  the  present  day,  by  whom  the  obvious 
sense  of  the  Church's  words  is  rejected.  Now, 
in  handling  this  subject,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
consider  the  Church's  words  at  large,  but  only 
that  part  of  her  offices,  in  which  the  doctrine  of 
Baptism  is  delivered.  The  Seventeenth  Article, 
therefore,  shall  be  left  untouched  for  several 
reasons.  First — It  will  be  manifest  to  those  who 
will  compare  it  with  the  slight  sketch  of  the 
Church's  doctrine  respecting  the  Divine  Decrees, 
which  hast  just  been  given,  that  it  asserts  no 
more  than  has  universally  been  believed  on  this 
subject.  The  ground  on  which  it  has  been  often 
supposed  to  have  a  contrary  tendency  is,  that  it 
does  not  guard  and  limit  its  statements  respecting 
the  Decrees  of  God  by  a  co-incident  assertion  of 


180 

human  responsibility.  But  then  such  statements 
occur  in  other  portions  of  the  Church's  teaching ; 
and  it  is  exactly  conformable  to  the  example  of 
Scripture  to  put  forth  God's  Decrees  in  their 
simplicity,  while  the  consistency  of  doctrine  is 
maintained  by  other  statements,  in  which  the 
accountableness  of  man  is  not  less  explicitly  vin- 
dicated. 

Again — Dr.  Laurence1  has  shown  beyond  dis- 
pute, that  historical  evidence  plainly  identities  the 
teaching  of  the  Articles  with  the  school  of  Melanc- 
thon,  rather  than  with  that  of  Calvin.  Melancthon 
was  the  person  principally  consulted  by  Cranmer3 
at  the  time  of  their  composition  ;  the  language  it- 
self is  in  great  measure  borrowed  from  Melanc- 
thon's  words ;  and  it  was  not  till  a.  d.  15523  (a 
year  after  the  original  compilation  of  the  Articles,)4 
that  the  peculiar  theory  of  Calvin  became  a  matter 
of  public  controversy.  The  Lutherans,  indeed,  had 
used  language  at  an  earlier  period,  which  may  be 
confounded  with  that  of  Calvin  ;  but  a  charac- 
teristic difference  had  separated  the  two  parties  : 
the  language  of  the  Lutherans  was  founded  mainly 
upon  a  philosophical  misconception  of  the  difficulty 
of  reconciling  foreknowledge  with  free-agency — 
while  the  scriptural  statement  of  God's  Decrees  re- 
specting the  re-creation  of  mankind  in  Christ,  was 
maintained  by  Calvin  to  be  a  sentence  passed  arbi- 
trarily upon  individuals.  And  when  our  Articles 
were  composed,  the  Lutherans,  as  their  own  con- 

1  Bampton  Lecture,  viii.  and  note  3,  p.  167  and  431. 

2  Bampt.  Lect.  p.  229  and  232.     Notes  6  and  7  in  Serm.  ii. 

3  Laurence's  Bampt.  Lect.     Note  18  in  Serm.  ii.  p.  246 
Stripe's  Cranmer,  B.  ii.  cap.  xxvii. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  181 

fessions5  prove,  were  heartily  ashamed  of  the  Stoical 
tendency  of  their  early  statements. 

Thirdly — It  is  comparatively  immaterial  what  are 
men's  views  respecting  the  Seventeenth  Article, 
provided  they  are  not  led  into  a  practical  disbelief 
of  the  actions  of  the  Mediator,  as  brought  out  in 
the  Sacramental  Services  of  the  Church.  It  has 
never  been  disputed  that  the  doctrine  of  grace  in- 
volves a  deep  mystery,  to  which  the  faculties  of 
man  are  unable  to  do  justice.  Its  mystery  lies  in 
the  fact,  that  all  the  good  of  human  actions  must  be 
assigned  to  <c  the  Father  of  Lights,"  in  whom  lies 
the  ultimate  fountain  of  illumination,  and  yet  that 
the  agency  of  man  is  to  be  so  far  admitted,  that  the 
evil  of  his  doings  may  be  chargeable  on  his  own 
responsibility.  This  object  the  Church6  has  effect- 
ed, not  by  such  a  minute  analysis  of  motives  as 

5  Vide  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  Serm.  ii.  note  21  : 
"Nimis  horridse  fuerunt  initio  Stoics  disputationes  apud  nostros 
de  fato,  et  discipline  nocuerunt." — Melanct.  Epist.  Lib.  iii.  Ep. 
42.  This  Epistle  is  addressed  to  Cranmer,  Comp.  Lib.  iv.  Ep. 
796,  where  he  calls  Calvin  u  Zeno." 

6  If  the  reader  asks  for  a  specimen  of  the  ingenious  theories 
on  this  subject,  which  have  been  suggested  by  individuals,  he 
may  take  the  following  statement  of  the  views  of  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas  from  Montagne  (Turnellius)  De  Gratia  ;  Diss.  xi.  De 
Jansenio:  "  Observant  Thomisue.  Primo — Deum  esse  primam 
causam  efficientem,  hominem  vero  primam  causam  deficientem. 
Secundo — In  omni  opere,  sive  bono,  sive  malo,  aliquid  ex  parte 
Dei,  et  aliquid  ex  parte  hominis  rcperiri :  scilicet  in  opere  bono, 
ex  parte  Dei  reperitur  gratia ;  ex  parte  hominis  consensus  gra- 
tia; ;  in  opere  malo,  ex  parte  Dei  voluntas  denegandae  gratiae 
prsemoventis ;  ex  parte  hominis,  mala  peccandi  voluntas,  ipsum- 
que  actuale  peccatum.  Tertio — Id  omne  quod  in  opere  bono  ex 
parte  Dei  reperitur,  prius  esse  et  causam  ejus,  quod  ex  parte 
hominis  adcst  in  eodem  opere ;  e  contra  in  opere  malo,  quod  ex 
parte  hominis  adest,  e<?  prius  esse  et  causam  ejus,  quod  ex  parte 
Dei  contingit." 

16 


182  THE 

would  adjudicate  the  different  portions  of  every 
action  to  its  proper  parentage,  but  by  putting  side 
by  side,  in  their  fulness,  the  two  doctrines  of  God's 
power  and  man's  accountableness.  For  though  our 
faculties  are  not  adequate  to  lay  down  the  exact 
laws  under  which  the  two  principles  concur,  there 
is  no  contradiction  in  their  joint  statement.  To 
assert  that  the  means  of  salvation  are  only  through 
grace,  and  that  grace  is  only  given  arbitrarily  to  a 
selected  few,  is  to  say  that  the  means  of  salvation 
are  not  given  to  the  residue  of  men — it  is  to  assert, 
therefore,  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Reprobation. 
And  to  affirm  the  first  statement,  but  deny  the 
second,  would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms:  it  would 
be  to  affirm  a  thing  to  be  true,  at  the  same  time  that 
we  denied  it.  And  therefore  to  assert  the  Calvin- 
istic doctrine  of  Election,  and  profess  to  reject  the 
doctrine  of  Reprobation,  has  been  stated  by  Calvin 
himself  to  be  childish  and  irrational  [u  minis  inscite 
et  pueriliter."]  But  there  is  no  such  contradiction, 
in  admitting  that  we  are  unable  to  discern  by  what 
laws  two  co-ordinate  principles  coalesce  in  the  pro- 
duction of  a  certain  set  of  actions.  This  is  only  a 
confession  of  human  ignorance.  And  such  has 
always  been  the  Church's  manner  of  treating  the 
question.  The  statements  of  its  doctrine  on  grace, 
which  were  collected  by  Celestine,  conclude  with 
the  following  declaration  :  "  On  the  more  profound 
and  difficult  questions,  into  which  this  subject  runs, 
which  those  who  opposed  the  heretics  have  treated 
at  large,  while  we  do  not  dare  to  despise  them,  we 
think  it  unnecessary  to  dogmatize."7 

7  Harduin,  vol.  i.  p.  1258. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  18 

In  discussing,  then,  the  Calvinism  imputed  to 
the  Reformers,  it  is  not  necessary,  in  this  place,  to 
enter  into  those  more  abstract  questions,  which 
might  be  raised  respecting  the  Articles  :  the  practi- 
cal language  of  the  Service  is  sufficient  for  our  pur- 
pose. For  the  present  subject  does  not  lead  us  into 
a  philosophical  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  things, 
but  connects  itself  with  the  direct  assurances  of 
Holy  Scripture.  And  however  highly  men  estimate 
the  doctrinal  authority  of  the  Articles,  yet  the 
statements  of  the  Service-Book  cannot  be  super- 
seded. For  not  only  do  all  the  beneficed  clergy 
affirm  their  assent  and  consent  to  it  (which  they 
could  not  do  without  believing  its  assertions  to  be 
correct,)  but  they  use  it  on  the  most  solemn  occa- 
sions, and  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God.  And 
the  Laity  also  are  compelled  to  give  it  a  silent  as- 
sent, because  the  affecting  ordinances,  which  touch 
most  nearly  on  family  life,  cannot  be  ministered 
without  its  employment.  So  that  unless  the 
assertions  of  the  Prayer-Book  were  true,  they  could 
not  in  any  wise  be  tolerated.  But  then  Mr.  Goode 
and  others  affirm,  that  though  the  language  of  the 
Service-Book  is  not  what  they  like  (which  is  a  vir- 
tual admission  that  prima  facie  it  makes  against 
them,)  yet  that  it  is  not  so  express,  but  that  taking 
into  account  what  its  authors  must  have  meant, 
they  can  honestly  subscribe  it.  "  My  own  view," 
says  Mr.  Goode,  "  would,  even  in  theory,  apart 
from  the  experience  of  the  results,  be  adverse  to  the 
use  of  such  lauguage  ;  while,  knowing  the  meaning 
intended  to  be  affixed  to  it  by  those  who  applied  it 
in  our  Formularies,  I  have  not  the  smallest  difficulty 
in  accepting  it.     Now,  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that 


184 

this  principle  may  fairly  be  applied  in  various  cases. 
When  language  is  dubious,  the  intention  with 
which  it  is  was  uttered  enables  us  to  affix  a  definite 
meaning  to  that,  which  might  otherwise  be  uncer- 
tain. But  then  the  language  employed  must  really 
be  dubious,  for  if  distinct  assertions  are  in  this 
manner  to  be  explained  away,  of  what  use  is  lan- 
guage as  the  vehicle  of  thought  ?  And,  therefore, 
to  introduce  this  principle  as  an  argument  against 
Baptismal  Regeneration,  would  only  issue,  were 
the  attempt  successful,  in  the  conclusion  that  the 
Reformers  were  dishonest  men.  But  how  far  is 
Mr.  Goode's  assertion,  respecting  the  opinions  of 
the  Reformers,  wTell-founded  ?  The  point  which  he 
has  to  prove,  is,  that  Calvin istic  sentiments  were 
entertained  by  those  parties,  by  whom  our  different 
services  for  Baptism  were  drawn  up.  Thus  he 
will  obtain  a  principle  for  interpreting  any  ambigu- 
ous expressions.  Who,  then,  were  their  compilers  ? 
This  inquiry  involves  the  consideration  of  that 
which  passed  at  three  several  eras — the  first  com- 
pilation of  the  Prayer-Book,  a.  d.  1548-9,  the  ad- 
dition of  the  last  part  of  the  Catechism,  a.  d.  1604, 
the  passing  of  the  last  Act  of  Uniformity,  a.  d. 
1662.  It  must  be  considered  by  whom  the  Church's 
Services  wTere  composed  at  these  different  periods, 
and  what  is  known  of  the  private  opinions  of  those 
who  compiled  them. 

The  first  period,  a.  d.  1548,  is  the  most  mate- 
rial, because  the  larger  part  of  our  present  Offices 
of  Baptism  was  then  first  put  together.  And  the 
work  which  was  then  done  was  so  avowedly  re- 
ferred to  Cranmer  (the  only  person  whose  name 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  185 

was  inserted  in  the  Act  passed  upon  the  occasion,) 
that  it  will  not  be  needful  to  go  further  in  any  inquiry 
into  the  sentiments  of  its  authors.  This  First  Book 
of  King  Edward  underwent  great  alteration  indeed, 
a.  d.  1552,  but  as  the  changes  then  made  consisted 
of  the  excision  of  various  important  rites,  while 
that  which  remained  received  no  material  accession, 
the  changes  then  made  throw  no  light  upon  the  in- 
tention of  those  original  expressions  which  are  left 
to  us.  And  the  same  may  be  said  respecting  the 
ratification  of  the  services  on  the  accesssion  of 
Elizabeth,  a.  d.  1559,  by  which  the  meaning  to  be 
attached  to  the  expressions  which  were  left  un- 
touched was  wholly  unaltered.  For  so  far  as  this 
meaning  is  to  be  elicited  from  the  natural  force  of 
the  words,  or  from  the  intention  of  those  who  com- 
piled them,  their  subsequent  adoption  at  that  pe- 
riod is  immaterial. 

It  may  be  maintained,  indeed,  that  we  are  not 
to  look  merely  to  the  force  of  the  words  themselves, 
but  to  the  general  design  of  those  from  whom  they 
receive  legal  validity.  But  this  principle  would  be 
far  from  placing  Mr.  Goode  in  a  more  favourable 
position,  for  it  would  bring  him  down  from  the  1st 
Elizabeth,  to  the  14th  Charles  II.  For  since  a 
subsequent  Act  of  the  Legislature  supersedes  those 
Acts  which  precede  it,  our  present  Act  of  Unifor- 
mity dates  from  a.  d.  1662,  and  the  parties  to  whose 
intention  it  would  refer  us,  are  the  Convocation 
and  Parliament  which  then  assembled.  And  the 
intention  of  these  parties  is  too  well  known  to  ren- 
der it  possible  to  suppose  them  favourable  to  Cal- 

8  Strype's  Eccles.  Mem.  vol.  ii.  part  i.  p.  134. 

16* 


186  THE 

vinism.  So  that  Mr.  Goode  is  concluded  from  go- 
ing further  than  a.  d.  1549,  when  the  Prayer-Book 
was  first  published,  by  his  unwillingness  to  go  on 
to  a.  d.  1662,  when  it  received  that  legal  sanction, 
which  at  present  accompanies  it.  To  this,  then, 
we  come  at  present  ;  and  something  shall  after- 
wards be  said  respecting  the  additions  to  the  Cate- 
chism after  the  Hampton  Conference,  a.  d.  1604, 
and  respecting  the  additions  to  the  Baptismal 
Offices,  a.  d.  1662. 

Now,  in  entering  upon  the  consideration  of 
Cranmer's  opinions,  it  is  necessary  to  follow  Mr. 
Goode  into  the  somewhat  novel  ground  to  which 
he  has  transferred  the  controversy.  He  opens  his 
historical  statements  with  the  startling  assertion,  that 
Peter  Lombard  is  on  his  side,  and  that  in  the 
blooming  period  of  the  Scholastic  Philosophy,  it 
was  an  open  question  whether  "  grace  was  always 
conferred  upon  infants  in  Baptism."  The  state- 
ment is  surprising,  considering  the  expressions 
which  occur  in  those  public  services  which  were 
at  that  time  employed  by  the  Church,  and  consid- 
ering the  words  of  the  Fathers,  whom  the  School- 
men wrere  accustomed  to  acknowledge  as  para- 
mount authorities.  Mr.  Goode  rests  his  claim  to 
Peter  Lombard's  sanction  upon  a  passage  quoted 
in  part  by  Dr.  Pusey,9  in  which  inquiry  is  made, 
"  whether  to  children  in  Baptism  is  given  grace,  by 
which  they  may  profit  in  riper  years."  "  The 
Master  of  the  Sentences,  no  doubt,  holds,"  says 
Mr.  Goode,  "  that  all  the  infants  of  Christians  re- 
ceive in  Baptism  remission  of  their  sins."     But  he 

9"  Scriptural  views  of  Baptism,"  p.  150.     First  Edition. 


NOT    DRAWN  UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  187 

does  not  think,  Mr.  Goode  implies,  that  "  those  gifts 
of  grace  that  give  spiritual  life  to  the  soul"  .  .  . 
.  .  "  were  conferred  at  all  upon  infants."  "  And  the 
doctrine  that  grace  was  always  conferred  upon  in- 
fants in  Baptism,  did  not  become  a  ruled  doctrine 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  till  the  Council  of  Vienna, 
in  1311,  and  was  then  only  laid  down  as  ihe  more 
probable  opinion.  For  in  a  letter  of  Pope  Inno- 
cent IV.,  in  1250,  afterwards  inserted  in  the  Canon 
Law,  it  is  distinctly  recognized  as  an  open  ques- 
tion, whether  grace  is,  or  is  not,  conferred  upon  in- 
fants in  Baptism." 

To  point  out  the  groundlessness  of  these  state- 
ments, is  not  a  mere  question  of  antiquarian  research 
The  assertions  before  us  are  a  necessary  step  in 
Mr.  Goode's  argument,  and  their  removal  will  be 
seen  in  the  sequel  to  be  fatal  to  those  conclusions, 
of  which  Cranmer,  and  through  him  the  English 
Church,  are  the  subjects.  And  rilfct,  what  is  to  be 
said  respecting  Peter  Lombard  ?  Did  he  deny,  or 
even  doubt,  that  grace  was  bestowed  on  infants  in 
Baptism  ?  Far  from  it :  had  Mr.  Goode  taken  the 
trouble  to  look  somew7hat  further  in  Lombard's 
pages,  he  wyould  have  seen  this  truth  distinctly 
stated  ;  and  thus  he  might  have  been  led  to  perceive 
that  the  passage  wThich  he  has  himself  quoted,  and 
which  asserts  that  the  grace  given  in  infancy  is  not 
sufficient  for  the  adult,  but  requires  augmentation  in 
riper  years,  is  rather  hostile  to  his  own  view  than 
favourable  to  it.  For  Peter  Lombard's  words  come, 
at  the  most,  to  no  more  than  those  of  Hooker :  "  Bap- 
tism doth  challenge  to  itself  but  the  inchoation  of 
those  graces,  the  consummation  whereof  dependeth 
on    mysteries   ensuing."      The   following   is    Mr. 


188 

Goode's  own  translation  :  "  Respecting  infants,  who 
have  not  arrived  at  the  use  of  their  reason,  there  is 
a  question,  whether  in  Baptism  they  have  received 
grace  by  which,  when  they  come  to  riper  years, 
they  may  be  able  to  will  and  work  what  is  good. 
It  appears  that  they  have  not  received  it ;  inasmuch 
as  that  grace  is  love  and  faith,  which  prepares  and 
aids  the  will.  And  who  will  say  that  they  have  re- 
ceived faith  and  love  ?  But  if  they  have  not  re- 
ceived grace,  by  which  they  may  be  able  to  do 
good  works  when  they  have  grown  up,  therefore  the 
grace  given  in  Baptism  is  not  sufficient  for  them  in 
this  state  (i.  e.  as  adults,)  nor  can  they  nowT  be  good 
through  it,  but  need  the  addition  of  other  grace." 
Mr.  Goode  does  not  add,  in  his  translation,  the  suc- 
ceeding words,  which,  however,  are  very  material 
to  the  argument:  "  And  if  this  grace  is  not  added, 
it  is  not  their  fault,  because  they  have  been  justified 
from  sin  ?"10  I^w  these  words  might  suggest  the 
real  meaning  of  the  ambiguous  expression,  "  the 
grace  given  in  Baptism  is  not  sufficient."  Does 
this  assertion  mean,  as  Mr.  Goode  supposes,  that 
Baptism  does  not  confer  "  those  gifts  of  grace  that 
give  spiritual  life  to  the  soul  ?"  Or  does  it  mean 
merely  that  though  the  life  of  the  soul  begins  in 
Baptism,  yet  that  an  augmentation  of  grace  is  needed 
in  riper  years  ?  The  least  acquaintance  with  Peter 
Lombard's  system,  will  show  that  it  means  the 
second. 

Ii  is  impossible  to  establish  this  statement  by  re- 
ference to  other  passages,  without  a  passing  notice 
of  the  relation  which  the  Master  of  the  Sentences 
bore  to  his  predecessors.     When  he  left  his  native 

10  Peter  Lombard,  Lib.  iv.  Dis.  iv.  H. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  189 

Lombardy  to  study  at  Paris,  he  found  that  the  sys- 
tem of  pure  reasoning,  which  Abelard  had  carried 
to  the  extreme  of  skepticism,  was  likely  to  be  alto- 
gether fatal  to  authority.  His  aim,  therefore,  when 
he  rose  into  eminence,  was  to  give  shape  and  fixed- 
ness to  the  voice  of  the  Church,  by  collecting  its 
scattered  dicta  into  a  consistent  body.  The  Book 
of  Sentences,  therefore,  was  little  more  than  the 
opinions  of  the  Fathers,  collected  into  a  methodized 
whole,  and  especially  of  those  four  Latin  Doctors, 
St.  Hilary,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Jerome,  and  St.  Aus- 
tin, by  whom  the  final  judgment  of  the  Western 
Church  had  been  expressed.  It  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected that  such  an  author  could  directly  oppose 
any  synodical  decree,  which  the  Church  had  put 
forth  as  the  basis  of  its  teaching.  It  would  have 
been  strange  indeed  if  he  had  been  unmindful  of 
that  decree  of  the  Council  of  Orange,  which  con- 
cluded the  contentions  respecting  grace,  by  which 
the  ancient  Church  had  so  long  been  agitated. 
"  This,  too,  we  consider  to  be  accordant  to  the 
Catholic  Faith,  that  all  the  baptized,  having  received 
grace  through  Baptism,  can  fulfil,  if  they  will  labour 
faithfully,  and  ought,  by  Christ's  help  and  co-opera- 
tion, to  fulfil  whatever  is  needed  for  the  salvation 
of  their  souls."11  Now  here  are  the  very  conditions 
which  Mr.  Goode  sets  down  as  essential,  in  his  judg- 
ment, to  the  assertion  of  Baptismal  regeneration  ; 
the  statement,  namely — first,  that  grace  is  bestowed 
on  all  who  are  baptized  ;  and,  secondly,  that  the 
gift  bestowed  on  the  baptized  "  does  not  apply  to 
them  merely  as  infants,  but  extends  to  their  condi- 
tion as  adults."    For  here  it  is  all  who  are  baptized, 

11  Harduin,  ii.  1001. 


190  the  church's  service 

and  the  gift  bestowed  is  spoken  of  as  contributing  to 
future  obedience. 

Such,  then,  was  the  position  in  which  this  doc- 
trine had  been  left  by  those  Fathers  whom  Lom- 
bard epitomized.  Neither  had  the  succession  of 
doctrine  been  since  interrupted.  For  in  the  ninth 
century  the  same  two  criteria  re-appear  in  the  state- 
ments of  the  Council  of  Valence,12  which  makes 
especial  reference  to  the  previous  Synod  of  Orange, 
as  having  fixed  the  consent  of  doctrine  on  this 
momentous  subject.  This  Council  was  called  on 
occasion  of  those  disputes  on  Predestination, 
which  had  been  revived  in  Dauphiny  ;  and  it 
affirms,  first,  the  regeneration  of  all  baptized  per- 
sons ;  and,  secondly,  the  necessity  of  their  con- 
tinuance in  grace  given.  And  thus  are  we  carried 
on  to  the  divines  of  the  twelfth  century,  of  whom 
it  will  be  enough  to  mention  two,  as  showing 
what  was  the  mode  of  thought  which  Peter  Lom- 
bard inherited.  For  he  owed  his  first  introduc- 
tion to  the  University  of  Paris  to  the  patronage  of 
St.  Bernard,  who  thus  forms  the  link  between  the 
Fathers  and  the  Schoolmen.  And  St.  Bernard 
recommended  him  to  the  care  of  Gildin,  Abbot 
of  St.  Victor,  whose  society  was  just  then  adorned 
by  the  celebrated  Hugh  of  St.  Victor.  Now 
what  were  their  sentiments   on  Baptism  ?     Two 

12  "Quod  omnis  multitudo  fidelium  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu  sanc.to 
regencrata,ac  per  hoc  veraciter  ecclcs'ue  incorporata,  et  in  morte 
Christi  baptizata,  in  ejus  sanguine  sit  a  peccatis  suis  abluta.  .  .  . 
Alios  salvari  selerna  salute,  quia  per  gratiam  Dei  in  redemptione 
sua  fidoliter permanent,  .  .  .  alios,  quia  noluerunt  permancre  in 
salute  fidci,  quain  initio  accepcrunt,  redemptioniaque  gratiam 
potius  irritam  facere  quam  servare  elegorunt.  ad  perceptionein 
aeternae  beatitudinis  nullo  modo  pervenire." — llarduin,  v.  p.  1)1. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  191 

passages  are  subjoined  from  the  second,  showing 
that  he  maintained  every  infant  to  receive  the 
gift  which  it  bestows;  and  also  that  the  gift 
communicated  is  spiritual  grace.13  The  words  of 
St.  Bernard  are  still  more  to  the  point,  because 
they  indicate  what  it  was  wThich  Lombard  de- 
signed by  that  forgiveness  of  original  sin,  which 
Mr.  Goode  allows  him  to  have  attributed  to  Bap- 
tism. He  did  not  conceive  that  the  removal  of 
man's  guilt  was  effected  by  any  technical  altera- 
tion in  his  external  circumstances,  but  by  such 
inward  purification,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  only  can 
effect.  It  was  this  real  change,  wrhich  the  blood 
of  the  Son  of  God  had  purchased  for  the  faithful. 
u  What,  therefore,  is  that  grace,  whereof  we  have 
investiture  by  Baptism  ?  It  is  the  purification, 
surely,  of  our  sins.  For  who  can  m^kehini  clean, 
who  is  conceived  of  unclean  seed,  save  He,  who 
only  is  clean,  to  whom  sin  belongs  not,  God  ?" 
"We  are  washed,  therefore,  in  Baptism,  because 
the  hand-writing  of  our  condemnation  is  done 
away,  and  this  grace  is  given  to  us,  that  hence- 
forth concupiscence  should  harm  us  not,  if  only 
we  abstain  from  giving  consent  to  it."14 

These  statements  lead  us  on  to  the  doctrine  of 

13  "  Sacramontum  et  rem  sacramenti  suscipiunt  parvuli  ubi- 
cunque  eta  quibuscunque  baptizantur  in  nomine  S.  Trinitatis." — 
Hugo  de.  S.  Victore.     Summa  Senfentiarutn,  vol.  i.  400. 

"  Per  verburn  elementum  canctificatur,  ut  virtutem  sacramenti 
accipiat.  Ut  quemadmodum  elementum  ex  naturali  quadam 
qualitate  repracsentat,  ex  superaddita  institutions  significat:  sic 
ex  sanctificatione  contineat  (quae  sanctificandis  per  earn  imper- 
tienda  est)  gratiam  spiritualem." — De  Sticramcntis,  Lib.  ii.  p.  6, 
sec.  ii.  vol.  iii.  620. 

14  Sermo  in  Caena  Domini,  2,  3,  vol.  i.  p.  897.  Paris,  1719. 


192  the  church's  service 

Peter  Lombard,  which  differed  in  one  very  essen- 
tial point  from  that 'of  the  later  Schoolmen.  For 
whereas  they  separated  those  gifts,  which  grace 
bestows  upon  men,  from  their  Divine  Giver ; 
speaking  of  them  as  habits  infused  into  the  mind, 
which,  when  bestowed,  may,  by  some  perhaps  be 
supposed  to  be  our  own  ;  he,  on  the  contrary, 
keeping  nearer  to  the  statements  of  antiquity, 
identified  the  "  love  of  God  which  is  shed  abroad 
in  our  hearts,"  with  the  spirit  which  sheds  it. 
By  this  means  he  avoids  a  question  which  is  some- 
times raised  respecting  the  words  of  the  Apostles, 
whether  by  love  they  mean  that  principle  of  which 
GoeHs  the  source,  or  that  of  which  He  is  the  ob- 
ject. For  according  to  him  these  things  differ 
from  one  another,  only  as  the  fountain  differs  from 
the  stream.15  "  It  has  been  stated  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  that  love  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son, 
whereby  they  love  us,  and  whereby  they  are 
loved  mutually  by  one  another.  Further,  this 
Holy  Ghost  is  that  love  or  Charity,  whereby  we 
love  God  and  our  neighbour ;  and  when  this 
charity  so  prevails  in  us,  as  to  make  us  love  God 
and  our  neighbour,  then  the  Holy  Ghost  is  said 
to  be  given  to  us."16  This  is  virtually  the  same 
statement  for  which  Petavius  produces  abundant 
authorities  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers. 
"  That  which  even  in  this  life  gilds  us  with  the 
glory  of  sons  I  mean  the   Holy  Ghost,  because  it 


15  "  Misit  autem  nobis  de  coelo  Paracletum,  per  quern  et  in 
quo  nobiscum  est,  et  in  nobis  babitat,  non  alienum  nobis  infun- 
dens,  sed  substantia  sua3  et  Patris  proprium  Spirituni." — &  Cy- 
ril de  Sancta  Trin,  Dial.  vii.  vol.  v.  p.  642. 

16  Lib.  Sent.  i.  17,  B. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  193 

belongs  to  the  Son,  will  produce  the  adoption  of 
sons  even  in  others :  in  Him  its  work  is  not 
wrought,  because  not  coming  to  Him  from  with- 
out, but  being  substantially  one  with  Him  ;  and 
through  Him  it  flows  forth  to  those  who  are  wor- 
thy to  receive  Him,  by  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
Father."17  Or  again  take  the  following  passage  : 
a  Our  Lord  says,  '  He  that  is  least  in  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  is  greater  than  John  the  Baptist.'  The 
words  can  refer  only  in  one  way  to  the  person 
who  is  newly  baptized,  and  whose  own  con- 
duct can  as  yet  give  him  no  claim  to  prominence ; 
namely  that  the  Blessed  Baptist  was  born  of  wo- 
man, but  he  has  been  born  of  God,  and  has  be- 
come partaker  of  the  Divine  nature,  having  the 
Holy  Ghost  dwelling  in  him,  and  being  now  the 
temple  of  God."13  Now  it  is  plain  that  those  who 
entertained  this  view  of  things  could  not  make 
that  separation,  which  Mr.  Goode  attributes  to 
Lombard,  between  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
the  gift  of  grace.  For  the  first  must  be  supposed 
to  come  through  that  participation  in  the  Divine 
nature  which  is  communicated  through  the  second. 
And  this,  Lombard  tells  us  in  express  words,  is 
to  refer  the  forgiveness  of  original  sin  in  Baptism 
to  that  gift  of  grace,  from  which  Mr.  Goode  al- 
leges that  he  meant  to  discriminate  it.  "  There 
are  two  ways  in  which  original  sin  is  said  to  be 
remitted  in  Baptism  ;  by  the  grace  of  Baptism 
concupiscence  is  weakened,  so  as  not  to  reign, 
unless  man  gives  it  strength  by  consenting  to  it ; 


17  S.  Cyril,  Dial,  dc  Trin.  in  Petavins  de  Trin.  viii.  iv.  10. 
1!<  St.  Cyril  on  St.  John,  v.  39,  vol.  iv.  p.  475. 

17 


194  THE 

and  its  guilt  (reatus)  is  done  away.  Whence 
Augustin  says  in  his  book  on  the  Baptism  of  In- 
fants, that  this  is  the  work  which  is  effected  by 
grace  through  Baptism,  that  the  old  man  is  cruci- 
fied, and  the  body  of  sin  destroyed:  yet  that  this 
work  is  not  so  completely  effected,  as  that  while 
we  live,  concupiscence  is  wholly  destroyed,  but 
only  that  what  we  bring  with  us  into  the  world, 
wrill  not  injure  us  after  we  die."  He  concludes, 
therefore,  "  concupiscence  is  weakened  in  Bap- 
tism, and  for  this  reason  it  is  said  to  be  put  away, 
and  not  merely  because  guilt  is  expunged  in  it."19 
This  statement  shows  how  utterly  groundless 
is  Mr.  Goode's  opinion,  that  the  Master  of  the 
Sentences  imagined  original  sin  to  be  forgiven, 
but  did  not  imagine  grace  to  be  conferred  in 
Baptism.  In  concordance  with  those  who  pre- 
ceded him,  he  did  not  dissever  things,  which  are 
in  their  nature  inseparable.  For  though  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  was  purchased  once  for  all  upon 
the  Cross,  yet  it  does  not  belong  to  any,  but  those 
who,  through  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are 
made  members  of  Christ.  Our  own  Lanfranc  had 
expressed  the  same  truth  in  the  preceding  cen- 
tury, when  maintaining  that  Baptism,  without  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  sufficed  for  the  salvation  of  in- 
fants. u  'As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.'  Now,  to  put  on 
Christ,  is  to  have  God  as  our  inhabitant  through 
the  remission  of  sins.*'29  This,  then,  was  Peter 
Lombard's  notion  of  the  forgiveness  of  original 
sin  ;  it  results,  according  to  him,  from  that  ap- 

'-'  Lib.  it.  30,  B.  20  Wilkins's  Concilia,  i.  36  U 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINIST3.  195 

plication  of  Christ's  merits,  which  is  bestowed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  on  those  in  whom  He  takes  up 
His  dwelling.  Thus,  in  speaking  of  Confirmation, 
he  says  that  its  advantage  "is  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  for  corroboration,  as  in  Baptism  the 
same  gift  is  bestowred  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins." 
And  he  quotes  an  authority,  which  puts  confirma- 
tion the  higher  of  the  two,  as  bestowing  a  greater 
amount  of  virtue,  "  although  Baptism  avails  more 
to  forgiveness.  And  this,"  he  adds,  "  Raban 
seems  to  indicate  when  saying,  that  in  Baptism 
the  Holy  Ghost  descends  to  consecrate  a  dwelling 
for  God."21  These  passages  enable  us  to  discern 
the  nature  of  that  gift  of  forgiveness  of  sins, 
which  Lombard  attributes  to  Baptism,  It  is  a 
gift  which,  according  to  his  statement,  is  attained 
through  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  When 
he  asserts,  therefore,  that  this  gift  is  bestowed 
upon  all  infants,  he  asserts  that  in  all  there  is  the 
indwelling  of  grace.  "  The  external  sign,  and 
the  thing  signified,  are  received  simultaneously 
by  all  infants,  wTho  are  washed  from  original  sin 
in  Baptism."2-  It  is  utterly  erroneous,  therefore, 
to  represent  Lombard  as  doubting  that  grace  is 
bestowed  in  Baptism,  because  he  states  that  the 
gift  which  has  been  imparted  needs  to  be  con- 
tinually augmented  as  men  grow  in  years,  by  the 
further  influx  of  that  Blessed  Spirit,  from  whom 
it  originally  proceeded.  This  is  all  which  he  has 
said  in  the  passage  quoted  by  Mr.  Goode  ;  and 
his  meaning  is  rendered  with  far  more  fairness  by 
that  honest  epitomiser,  Dupin  :    "  Dans  la  qua- 

21  Lib.  Sent.  iv.  7,  A,  B.  22  Lib.  Sent.  iv.  4,  A. 


196  the  church's  service 

trieme  Distinction  il  traite  des  efTets  du  Bapteme  ; 
comment  les  uns  re9oivent  le  Sacrement  et  la 
Grace  du  Sacrement,  et  comment  les  autres  re- 
coivent  le  Sacrement  sans  la  Grace,  et  la  Grace 
sans  le  Sacrement.  II  prouve  que  les  enfans  re- 
eoivent  Pun  et  l'autre,  et  insinue  qu'ils  re^oivent 
meme  la  Grace  actuelle  qui  leur  sert  dans  la  suite 
pour  faire  de  bonnes  actions." 

Enough  has  been  said  of  Lombard.  After  his 
time  the  minds  of  men  took  a  more  speculative  turn  ; 
and  the  nature  of  that  gift,  which  was  expressed 
by  the  name  of  grace,  came  into  consideration.  As 
the  Aristotelian  theory  of  habits  mingled  with  the 
ancient  theology,  the  notion  that  Divine  assistance 
was  nothing  else  than  Christ's  presence  through 
the  Spirit,  was  exchanged  for  the  doctrine  of  habit- 
ual grace.  Inasmuch  as  "  light  puts  something 
into  the  illuminated  body,  and  grace  is  a  sort  of 
light  of  the  soul,"  it  was  held  that  <s  in  the  soul  of 
the  justified  there  was  a  habit  of  grace  or  a-  super- 
natural quality,"*1  which  was  something  distinct 
from  the  spirit  which  infused  it.  On  this  arose  the 
further  question,  whether  the  gift  of  the  Spirit, 
which  all  admitted  to  be  conferred  at  Baptism  im- 
plied the  infusion  of  that  habit  of  grace,  which  was 
supposed  to  be  its  consequence.  This,  however,  is 
a  question  which  many  great  writers  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  have  declared  to  be  immaterial.  Out  of 
the  host  of  testimonies,  which  Morinus  has  col- 
lected, it  will  be  enough  to  quote  a  few  statements 
from  Vasquez.  He  admits  "  that  there  was  no  dis- 
pute between  the  Fathers  and  the  Pelagians  about 
habitual  grace  ;  the  only  question  regarded  Divine 

23  Summa  Theol.  I"*  **•■  Q.  110,  1   and  2. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALYINISTS.  197 

assistance."  Again  he  says,  "  that  habitual  grace 
without  special  assistance  is  very  weak  :  and  the 
will,  even  if  it  has  it,  needs  some  external  stimu- 
lant to  excite  it  to  action.  Habitual  grace,"  he 
allows,  "  is  not  necessary  to  preserve  man  from 
mortal  sin  ;  actual  grace  preventing  and  assisting 
them  is  sufficient ;  and  habitual  grace  contributes 
little  to  it."  So  that  Morinus  concludes,  "  if  those 
most  learned  men  of  their  day,  Peter  of  Poitiers, 
Peter  the  Chanter  of  Paris,  Stephen  the  English- 
man, PraBpositivus,  and  the  other  disciples  of  Peter 
Lombard,  who  were  the  first  to  sow  the  seeds  of 
these  questions,  had  referred  rather  to  the  dicta  of 
the  ancient  Fathers,  than  to  their  own  logical  argu- 
ments, they  would  have  saved  themselves  and  their 
successors  from  falling  into  worse  perplexities  than 
those  which  Chrysippus  suggested  —  perplexities 
from  wThich  their  disciples  have  never  been  able  to 
extricate  themselves.  Therefore,  since  men  of  such 
weight  and  name  in  the  Church — Soto,  Can  us,  Me- 
dina, Tapper,  Pighius,  Stapleton,  Molina,  Vasquez, 
teach  us  as  they  do  about  the  opinion  of  the  ancient 
Fathers,  and  the  dogmas  of  the  Schoolmen  on  this 
matter ;  and  since  experience  convinces  those  who 
are  versed  in  the  writings  of  antiquity  that  their 
statements  are  true,  I  shall  take  no  notice  of  these 
ingenious  subtleties."24  It  is  plain,  then,  that  the 
question  whether  the  grace  infused  in  Baptism  be 
actual  or  habitual,  was  one  which  arose  only  out  of 
the  reasonings  of  the  Schoolmen,  and  was  wholly 
irrespective  of  the  inquiry,  whether  through  Baptism 
infants  became  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  last  point  was  assumed   by  Aquinas,  as  the 

24  "  De  Disciplina  Paenitolllia:,,,  viii.  7,  11,  12. 

17* 


198  i 

basis,  on  which  to  found  an  argument  for  the  in- 
fusion of  virtues.  "  Baptism,  as  Augustin  says  in 
his  book  on  the  baptizing  of  infants,  has  this  effect, 
that  the  baptized  are  incorporated  into  Christ  as  His 
members.  But  from  Christ  the  Head,  there  flows 
into  all  His  members  the  plenitude  of  grace  and 
virtue,  according  to  the  words  of  St.  John,  '  of  His 
fulness  have  all  we  received.'  "25  That  which  was 
recognized,  therefore,  by  Pope  Innocent  in  1250, 
"  as  an  open  question,"  was  not,  as  Mr.  Goode 
supposes,  whether  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
bestowed  in  Baptism,  respecting  which  no  dispute 
had  existed  among  the  learned  men,  to  whom  he 
alludes  ;  the  question  concerned  only  the  nature  of 
the  gift  ;  whether  it  was  merely  the  Spirit's  pre- 
sence, or  that  habitual  grace,  which  was  supposed 
to  pass  in  some  mysterious  manner  into  human 
virtues.  The  question  is  so  wholly  independent  of 
Baptismal  Regeneration,  that  it  does  not  appear  to 
be  ruled  in  the  Roman  Church  at  the  present  day. 
The  Council  of  Trent  passed  it  over.  And  the 
doctrine  of  habitual  grace  was  only  declared  to  be 
more  probable  by  Clement  V.,  when  treated  of  a.  d. 
1312,  at  a  Council,  which  was  not  held,  as  Mr. 
Goode  supposes,  at  Vienna,26  but  at  the  more  ap- 
propriate locality  of  Vienne,27  in  Dauphiny.  So 
that  there  exists  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  for 
supposing  that  Baptismal  grace  was  denied  by  any 
party  in  the  Church  from  the  time  of  Pelagius  to 
that  of  Zuinglius.     The  universal  concurrence  of 

23  Summa  Thcol.  iii.  Q.  69,  4. 

26  I  should  attribute  this  mistake  to  an  error  of  the  press,  but 
that  Mr.  Goode  speaks  more  than  once  of  what  he  calls  "  the 
Council  of  Vienna." 

27  Harduin,  vii.  1359. 


NOT    DRAWN    U?    EY    CALVIXISTS.  193 

writers  accords  with  that  which  was  expressed  by 
the  ancient  rituals;  wherein  it  was  entreated  for 
every  infant,  "  ut  fiat  templum  Dei  vivi,  et  Spiritus 
Sanctus  habitet  in  eo."^  And  to  suppose  that  this 
truth  is  invalidated  by  the  disputes  respecting  habit- 
ual grace,  is  as  if  it  were  denied  that  Caxton  intro- 
duced printing  into  England,  because  stereotype 
printing  was  introduced  into  this  country  by  Wil- 
liam Ged,  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  question  has  been  treated  more  at  large, 
because  upon  it  rests  Mr.  Goode's  weightiest  argu- 
ment— that  which  is  drawn  from  the  sentiments  of 
Cranmer.  It  seems  to  be  admitted,  that  Cranmer 
had  the  main  hand  in  compiling  King  Edward's 
first  Prayer-Book,  and  consequently  in  putting  to- 
gether the  bulk  of  our  Baptismal  Offices.  Mr. 
Goode,  therefore,  has  sought  diligently  for  proof  of 
Cranmer's  accordance  with  himself;  and  persuades 
himself  that  the  result  is  decisive  in  his  favour. 
"  If  it  shall  appear,"  he  says,  "  and  I  believe  it  to 
be  undeniable,  that  their  doctrine"  (i.  e.  of  our 
Reformers)  "was,  in  the  most  important  points, 
what  is  now  called  c  Calvinistic,'  there  is,  or  ought 
to  be,  an  end  to  the  controversy,  as  to  the  inter- 
pretation they  intended  to  be  given  to  our  Formu- 
laries, both  as  respects  Baptism,  and  several  other 
points."  And  after  quoting  various  passages 
from  "The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  com- 
monly attributed  to  -Cranmer,  he  speaks  of  u  these 
remarkable  passages,"  as  overthrowing  the  very 
foundations  of  that  Laudean  system  of  theology, 
pressed  upon  us  by  some  under  the  name  of 
4  Church  principles.'  "     But  Mr.  Goode's  career  of 

28  Martene  de  Ant.  Ritibus,  i.  80. 


200  the  church's  service 

success  is  of  necessity  checked  by  one  circum- 
stance. The  passages  which  he  selects  as  so  deci- 
sive, were  penned  ten  years  before  King  Edward's 
first  Prayer-Book,  and,  therefore,  before  Cranmer 
can  be  supposed,  according  to  any  hypothesis,  to 
have  shaken  off  that  belief  in  Baptismal  grace, 
which  he  must  have  acquired  in  his  childhood. 
For  it  happens  curiously  enough,  that  the  passages 
which  Mr.  Goode  supposes  to  be  most  favourable  to 
him  in  Cranmer's  writings,  are  taken  from  the 
"  Articles  about  Religion,"  a.  d.  1536,  "  The  In- 
stitution of  a  Christian  Man,"  a.  d.  1537,  and 
Cranmer's  remarks  upon  the  same,  a.  d.  ]538. 
And  hence  arises  the  absolute  necessity  under 
which  Mr.  Goode  is  placed,  of  proving  that  the 
Church  of  Rome,  before  the  Council  of  Trent,  did 
not  teach  Baptismal  Regeneration,  any  more  than 
the  Church  of  England.  To  this  opinion  he  fre- 
quently recurs;  "  we  have  already  seen,"  he  says, 
"  how  much  the  Romanists  were  divided  among 
themselves  on  the  question  of  the  effects  of  Bap- 
tism in  infants,  previously  to  the  Council  of  Trent." 
Whereas,  that  grace  is  bestowed  upon  infants  in 
Baptism,  has  been  shown  to  have  been  the  unani- 
mous and  unquestioned  opinion  of  the  Mediaeval 
Church;  and,  singularly  enough,  this  particular 
point  has  been  taken  for  granted  by  the  Council  of 
Trent,90  and  not  supposed  to  require  separate  notice. 

29  So  observes  Bishop  Davenant,  when  maintaining  that  the 
Roman  Church  has  not  decided  that  habits  are  infused  at  Bap- 
tism; he  says,  "  Addo,  Concilium  Tridentinum  non  sic  statu- 
isse." — [Letter  to  Ward.]  When  Perrone,  therefore,  would 
establish  the  agency  of  grace,  as  doing  away  original  sin  in 
Baptism,  he  refers  to  the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Ancient  Church,  and  accounts  lor  the  omission  of  this  subject 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  201 

So  that  to  suppose  Cranmer  to  have  dissented  from 
the  universal  belief,  ten  years  before  he  ceased  to 
employ  the  ancient  Service-Books,  is  to  attribute  to 
him  a  disingenuousness  as  strange  as  it  is  discredit- 
able. For  the  very  year  in  which  the  Articles  about 
Religion  "  were  put  forth,  Cranmer  acted  as  God- 
father30 at  the  christening  of  King  Edward  the  VI." 
If  he  really  disbelieved  in  the  gift  of  Baptismal 
grace,  how  could  he  have  taken  part  in  such  ser- 
vices as  the  Adjuration?  "Retire,  Satan,  from 
this  servant  of  God,  because  Our  God  and  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  has  vouchsafed  to  call  him  for  Himself 
to  His  grace  and  blessing,  and  the  font  of  Baptism 
by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."31  Or  take  the 
words  which  Cranmer  himself  probably  used  at  the 
Child's  Confirmation  :32  "  Almighty,  eternal  God, 
who  has  vouchsafed  to  regenerate  this  Thy  servant 
by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hast  given  to 
him  remission  of  all  his  sins,  send  down  upon  him 
Thy  sevenfold  Spirit."33  Or  take,  as  still  more  dis- 
tinctive, the  consecration  of  the  font,  which,  whether 
used  on  that  occasion  or  no,  was  a  constituent  part 

by  the  Council  of  Trent.  "  Licet  vero  Concilium  in  eo  non 
loquatur  exprcsse  nisi  de  reatu  peccati  originalis,  prout  ferebat 
ejus  scopus;  evidens  taraen  est,  per  gratiam,  qua?  ope  Baptismi 
infunditur,  tolli  reatum,"  &c. — Vroelec.  Theol.  vol.  vi.  De  Bap- 
tismo,  170. 

30  "  In  October,  on  St.  Edward's  even,  was  born  at  Hampton 
Court,  the  noble  Impe.  Prince  Edward,  whose  Godfathers  at  the 
Christening  were  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  Duke 
Norfolk,  &c.,  and  at  the  Bishopyng  was  Godfather  the  Duke  of 
Suffolk,  &c. — Grafton's  Chronicle. 

31  Maskell's  Monumenta  Ritualia.  i.  7. 

32  It  appears  from  Grafton  that  he  confirmed  Elizabeth  imme- 
diately after  he  had  acted  as  her  Sponsor  at  Baptism. 

38  Maskell,  i.  34. 


202  the  church's  service 

of  the  ancient  offices.  "  May  the  Holy  Ghost  im- 
pregnate this  water,  which  has  been  prepared  for 
the  regeneration  of  men,  with  the  secret  admixture 
of  His  own  light :  that  through  the  sanctification 
conceived  from  Him,  there  may  emerge  from  the 
unpolluted  womb  of  the  Divine  fountain,  a  celestial 
seed,  re-born  into  a  new  being."  "May  the  font 
be  living,  its  water  regenerating,  its  wave  purify- 
ing. That  all  who  are  to  be  washed  in  this  salu- 
tary laver,  through  the  operation  within  them  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  may  obtain  the  blessing  of  perfect 
purification."34 

How  can  such  expressions  harmonize  with  un- 
belief in  Baptismal  blessings  ?  Nor  need  Cranmer 
be  supposed  to  have  been  acting  under  compul- 
sion, if  he  sanctioned  such  statements  as  these, 
since  he  retained  some  of  the  most  significant  of 
the  ancient  usages  in  King  Edward's  days,  when 
it  was  safe  for  him  to  follow  his  own  will ;  and  it 
was  only  in  the  Second  Book  of  King  Edward, 
a.  d.  1552,  that  at  Bucer's  instance  they  were 
omitted.  If  we  would  understand  Cranmer's  po- 
sition, then,  up  to  1548,  we  must  take  into  ac- 
count those  parts  of  the  Service,  which  at  that 
time,  and  acting  on  his  own  motion,  he  retained 
in  it.  Of  this  kind  is  not  only  the  benediction  of 
the  wrater,  since  happily  restored,  but  the  adjura- 
tion and  the  delivery  of  the  Chrisome.  "  Take 
this  white  vesture,  for  a  token  of  the  innocency, 
which  by  God's  grace  in  this  holy  Sacrament  of 
Baptism  is  given  unto  thee."  These  seem  to  be 
sufficient  evidences  of  Cranmer's  mind.    But  if  a 

Maskell,  vol.  i.  19. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  203 

dogmatical  statement  be  preferred,  such  an  one 
may  be  found  in  the  articles  of  agreement  with 
the  Germans,  a.  d.  1538,  which  Dr.  Jenkyns35  has 
identified  with  Cranmer's  authority.  After  stating 
that  "in  adults,  besides  contrition,  there  must  be 
faith,  in  those  promises  which  the  Sacraments 
exhibit,"  the  Article  on  the  Sacraments  goes  on 
to  say,  "  as  to  infants,  since  it  would  be  rash  to 
exclude  them  from  the  mercy  of  God,  especially 
when  Our  Lord  says  in  the  Gospel,  '  suffer  the 
little  children  to  come  unto  Me,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven;7  and  again,  'unless  one  be 
born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,'  and  since  by  the 
perpetual  custom  of  the  Catholic  Church  from  the 
times  of  the  Apostles,  it  has  been  received  that 
infants  ought  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins  and  for  salvation  ;  we  say  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  efficacious  in  them,  and  purifies  them  in  Bap- 
tism."36 Now,  with  these  facts  before  us,  we  may 
surely  retort  upon  Mr.  Goode  his  own  argument, 
and  say,  "  here  then,  in  this  very  document  of 
1537,  we  find,  an  end  of  the  whole  controversy." 
For  his  whole  position  rests  upon  the  statement, 
first,  that  the  Reformers  were  Calvinists  ;  secondly, 
that  Calvinists  cannot  believe  Baptismal  Regene- 
ration. But  the  strongest  ground  which  he  can 
find,  that  on  which  alone  he  rests  as  deciding  the 
matter,  consists  of  expressions,  which  were  used 
by  Cranmer,  at  a  time  when  it  cannot  be  dis- 
ss '<  There  ean  be  no  doubt,  either  that  the  Book  of  Articles 
was  considered  at  that  time  of  great  importance,  or  that  Cran- 
mer was  concerned  in  framing  it," — Jenkyns's  Preface,  p.  xxiii 
36  Jenkyns's  Cranmer,  vol.  iv.  p.  2,  2S6. 


204  the  church's  service 

puted  that  he  was  a  firm  believer  in  the  doctrine 
in  question.  What  is  the  conclusion  but  that  Mr. 
Goode  is  mistaken  either  in  thinking  that  Cran- 
mer's  words  really  involve  an  admission  of  the 
tenets  of  Calvin  ;  or  else  in  supposing  that  a  the- 
oretic adoption  of  Calvinism  is  incompatible  with 
a  belief  in  Baptismal  grace  ?  His  argument  runs 
as  follows : 

Archbishop  Cranmer,  a.  d.  1536-8,  used  strong 
language  respecting  the  Divine  decrees. 

Those  who  use  strong  language  respecting  the 
Divine  decrees  cannot  believe  in  the  re-creation 
of  man  through  baptismal  grace. 

Therefore  Crammer  did  not  believe  this  doc- 
trine. 

Now  for  this  argument  we  may  substitute  the 
following : 

Archbishop  Cranmer,  a.  d.  1536-8,  used  strong 
language  respecting  the  Divine  decrees. 

But  the  re-creation  of  men  through  Baptismal 
Grace  was  firmly  held  by  Archbishop  Cranmer, 
a.  d.  1536-8. 

Therefore  this  doctrine  maybe  believed  by  those 
who  hold  strong  language  respecting  the  Divine 
decrees. 

Now  this  conclusion  is  absolutely  fatal  to  Mr. 
Goode's  argument ;  for  the  great  weight,  which 
he  has  attached  to  these  statements  of  Cranmer — 
the  prominent  place  in  which  he  has  put  them — 
shows  that  if  these  passages  do  not  make  out  his 
case,  he  has  no  others  which  can  do  so.  He  has 
no  other  words  so  strong,  by  which  to  show  that 
the  Reformers  agree  wTith  him  ;  and  if  the  use  of 
equivocal   expressions  was  compatible  with  a  be- 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  205 

lief  in  baptismal  grace  in  Cranmer  who  compiled 
the  service,  it  is  so  in  others  who  have  adopted  it. 
Here,  then,  so  far  as  strict  argument  goes,  we 
might  stop ;  but  I  proceed  to  give  some  elucida- 
tions of  the  passages  extracted.  They  are  taken 
from  the  "  Formularies  of  Faith,"  published  at 
Oxford,  a.  d.  1825.  Of  these  the  "Articles  about 
Religion,"  and  the  "  Institution  of  a  Christian 
Man,"  were  supposed  to  have  been  written  by 
Cranmer,  or  under  his  influence  ;  in  the  "  Necessary 
Doctrine  and  Erudition,"  which  followed  a.  d. 
1543,  he  probably  had  less  participation.  The 
passages,  however,  which  Mr.  Goode  has  drawn 
from  the  two  first  works,  only  illustrate  the  rule, 
which  has  been  attributed  to  the  Fathers,  that  they 
sometimes  speak  of  God's  grace  in  respect  to  its 
gift,  and  sometimes  in  respect  to  its  employment. 
Now,37  regarded  in  the  latter  light,  the  possession 
of  God's  grace  is  equivalent  to  the  certainty  of  sal- 
vation. In  the  passages  before  us  accordingly, 
grace,  election,  predestination,  are  spoken  of  as  the 
possession  of  God's  people,  but  the  statememt  (as 
shall  be  shortly  shown)  is  unaccompanied  by  those 
characteristic  distinctions,  which  are  required  to 
give  it  a  Calvinistic  force.  Another  circumstance 
may  be  observed  in  these  extracts ;  a  tendency, 
namely,  to  that  peculiar  view  of  justifying  faith  (at 
one  time  strongly  advocated  by  Luther,)  whereby 
its  essential  quality  was  supposed  to  lie  in  the  cer- 


37  Peter  Lombard  could  say:  "  Prsodestinatorum  nullus  vide- 
tur  posse  damnari,  nee  reproborum  aliquis  posse  salvari."  But 
he  adds :  Si  enim  cum  dicis,  Predaestinatus  non  potest  damnari, 
intelligas  ita,  id  est,  non  potest  esse  ut  prsedestinatus  sit  et  dam- 
netur,  verum  dicis," — Lib.  Senten.  i.  40,  B. 
18 


206 


tainty  which  each  man  entertained  of  his  own  sal- 
vation. This  opinion  Luther  was  compelled  by 
experience  to  modify;  and  Cranmer  took  a  very 
different  view  of  things  when  he  subsequently 
penned  that  Homily  of  Salvation,  to  which  our 
Article  refers  us.  Some  of  the  strongest  passages 
which  Mr.  Goode  selects,  are  built  upon  this  last 
principle.  And  yet  it  is  not  a  principle,  which  is 
tied  necessarily  to  the  system  of  Calvin :  Luther,38 
by  whom  it  had  been  introduced,  was  writing 
strongly  against  the  principles  of  Necessity,  in  the 
very  year  in  which  the  "  Articles  about  Religion" 
appeared  ;  and  the  persons  among  whom  the  notion 
most  prevails  at  the  present  day,  are  the  Arminian 
Methodists.  For,  in  truth,  this  principle  is  intro- 
duced into  the  Formularies  before  us,  as  a  part  of 
that  wTork  of  Contrition,  to  which  all  sinners  are 
exhorted.  One  requisite  to  Contrition  has  always 
been  supposed  to  be  the  hope  of  pardon.     And  this 


38  Men  should  not  turn  their  eyes  on  the  secret  sentence  of 
Election,  Foreknowledge,  and  Predestination,  as  they  are  call- 
ed; for  such  speeches  lead  to  douhts,  security,  or  despair:  are 
you  elected  1  no  fall  can  hurt  you,  and  you  cannot  perish — are 
you  not  elected  ]  there  is  no  remedy  for  it.  These  are  shocking 
speeches,  and  men  ought  not  to  fix  their  hearts  on  such  thoughts ; 
but  the  Gospel  refers  us  to  the  proclaimed  word  of  God,  wherein 
He  has  revealed  His  will,  and  through  which  he  will  he  known, 
and  will  work."  "  For  if  a  man  was  to  rule  his  life  according 
tc  the  secret  counsels  of  God,  we  could  make  nothing  of  God's 
command  of  the  Gospel,  of  the  Sacrament,  yea,  of  Christ  Him- 
self, but  should  go  over  head  into  excess  like  swine." — Luther  s 
Letters,  No.  1753,  [Dc  Wette.] 

"  The  statements  which  here  occur,"  says  Scckendorf,  "show 
what  was  Luther's  view  upon  this  subject,  and  what  interpreta- 
tion we  ought  to  give  to  some  overstrong  statements  of  his, 
which  are  elsewhere  to  be  met  with." — Hist.  Lib.  3,  xlix. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  207 

hope,  set  forth  in  a  somewhat  unguarded  form,  and 
unaccompanied  by  the  qualifications  which  are  usu- 
ally associated  with  it,  has  been  mistaken  by  Mr. 
Goode  for  the  assertion  of  Calvinism. 

But  how  is  the  diversity  of  the  two  systems  to 
be  established  ?  What  proof  can  be  brought,  that 
Calvinism  was  not  really  designed  ?  We  must  seek 
for  some  discriminating  condition,  by  which  the 
one  system  may  be  known  from  the  other.  Such 
a  means  of  discrimination  is  afforded  by  the  circum- 
stance, that  while  Calvinism  bases  man's  Predes- 
tination on  an  arbitrary  decree,  whereby  some  per- 
sons are  assigned  to  happiness  and  others  to  misery 
(thus  applying  a  coercive  force  to  the  ultimate 
springs  of  action,  and  superseding  the  responsibility 
of  man,)  the  "  Institution  of  a  Christian  man,"  on 
the  contrary,  assumes  that  salvation  may  be  attained 
by  all,  and  that  a  confiding  faith  is  that  appointed 
mean,  through  which  men  are  to  attain  it.  No 
doubt  Calvinists  would  often  express  the  same  hope, 
but  in  them  such  a  profession  would  be  the  same 
happy  inconsistency  which  enables  them  to  admit 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  grace.  And  therefore 
this  inconsistency  cannot  be  pleaded  by  those  who 
maintain,  at  the  same  time,  that  their  system  is  incom- 
patible with  a  belief  in  Sacramental  efficacy.  And 
this  is  the  particular  position  which  Mr.  Goode 
claims  for  Cranmer.  The  archbishop's  argument, 
as  he  understands  it,  is  as  follows: 

All  who  are  members  of  the  Church  will  be 
saved. 

But  God's  grace  is  not  given  to  any  except  mem- 
bers of  the  Church. 

Therefore  God's  grace  is  not  given  to  any  but 


208  the  church's  service 

those  who  will  finally  be  saved.  Now,  the  defect 
in  Mr.  Goode's  conclusion  arises  from  the  same 
cause  which  has  already  been  pointed  out ;  the 
Church  is  spoken  of  by  Cranmer  in  a  twofold 
sense  ;39  in  one  case  it  is  used  for  those  to  whom 
its  blessings  are  giveji,  in  the  other  for  those  by 
whom  they  are  employed.  Such  variety  in  the 
mode  of  speaking  has  the  highest  authority.  "I 
am  the  vine :  ye  are  the  branches."  "  Every 
branch  in  Me  that  beareth  not  fruit  He  taketh 
away."  Here  is  a  sense  in  which  Judas  was  a 
branch  in  the  True  Vine,  and  a  sense  in  which  he 
was  not  so.  This  double  mode  of  speaking  is 
professedly  employed  by  Cranmer  in  the  work  be- 
fore us.  He  speaks  of  those  who,  for  u  obstinate 
persevering  in  mortal  sin,"  "  shall  finally  be  found 
either  to  be  out  of  the  same  Church,  or  else  to  be 
as  dead  members  therein."40  No  doubt  he  exhorts 
every  one  to  such  faith  as  that  he  should  be  able  to 
say,  "  undoubtedly  I  trust  that  I  am  united  and 
corporated  as  a  living  member  into  this  Catholic 
Church."     Again, 

"  I  believe  that  in  this  catholic  Church,  I  and  all  the  lively  and 
quick  members  of  the  same,  shall  continue,  and  from  time  to 
time,  so  long  as  we  shall  live  here  on  earth,  obtain  remission 
and  forgiveness  of  all  our  sins,  as  well  original  as  actual,  by  the 
merits  of  Christ's  blood  and  His  Passion,  and  by  the  virtue  and 
efficacy  of  Christ's  Sacraments,  instituted  by  Him  for  that  pur- 
pose, so  oft  as  we  shall  worthily  receive  the  same.41 


39  The  twofold  way  of  speaking  of  the  Church,  is  enlarged 
upon  in  the  Articles  agreed  upon  by  Cranmer  with  the  Lutheran 
Delegates  :  "  Ecclesia  acceptiones  duas  habet  pracipuas,''  &c. — ■ 
Jenkyn&'s  Cranmer,  iv.  277. 

40  Formularies,  p.  59.  41  Ibid.  p.  58. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  209 

But  with  these  passages  are  united  various  refer- 
ences42 to  final  judgment,  and  to  the  possibility  ot 
self-deception,  as  well  as  assertions  like  that  which 
concludes  our  Seventeenth  Article,  of  the  general 
applicability  of  the  promises  of  God. 

These  statements,  however,  are  not  decisive. 
Some  certain  criterion  is  wanted,  if  we  would  sepa- 
rate Cranmer's  words  from  the  Calvinistic  system. 
And  such  a  criterion  is  provided  by  one  of  those 
passages,  which  Mr.  Goode  has  himself  selected — 
a  passage  so  distinct,  that  he  would  surely  have 
observed  it,  but  for  the  hurry  with  which  he  pro- 
fesses that  his  work  was  written.  For  it  is  mani- 
fest that  if  Cranmer  was  precluded  from  admitting 
Baptismal  Regeneration,  by  that  rigid  system  of 
Calvinism  which  excludes  all   except  those  who 


41  "All  they  transgress  this  commandment,  which  either  so 
much  presume  upon  the  mercy  of  God  that  they  fear  not  His 
justice,  and  by  reason  hereof  still  continue  in  their  sin  ;  or  else 
so  much  fear  His  justice,  that  they  have  no  trust  in  His  mercy, 
and  by  reason  thereof  fall  into  desperation." — Formularies. 
p.  133. 

"If  in  his  lifetime  he  had  not  this  right  faith  and  belief  in 
Christ,  or  having  opportunity,  did  not  express  this  obedience, 
but  transgressed  the  laws  of  God,  and  so  died  without  repen- 
tance, although  he  pretended  and  said  that  he  believed  never  so 
much,  and  trusted  in  Christ's  benefits  never  so  much,  yet  shall 
he  be  judged  and  condemned  to  the  everlasting  pains  of  hell." 
Id.  p.  71. 

"  It  is  greatly  to  be  wished  and  desired,  that  as  all  Christian 
men  do  know  the  same,  so  that  every  man  might  knowledge 
and  undoubtedly  believe  the  same  to  be  true  and  verified,  even 
upon  himself;  so  that  both  he  may  humble  himself  to  God,  and 
knowledge  himself  a  miserable  sinner  not  worthy  to  be  called 
his  son,  and  yet  surely  trust  that  to  him,  being  repentant,  God's 
mercy  is  ready  to  forgive. — Annot-  86  on  the  Kind's  Book.  Jen- 
kyns,  ii.  p.  93. 

18* 


210 

will  be  saved  from  any  real  communication  of  spir- 
itual blessings,  he  could  not  have  spoken  of  per- 
sons who  will  finally  be  impenitent  as  partaking  of 
grace.  But  what  does  he  say  ?  "  Forasmuch  as 
they,"  i.  e.,  the  wicked,  "  do  live  in  the  common 
society  or  company  of  those  which  be  the  very 
quick  and  living  members  of  Christ's  Mystical 
Body,  and  outwardly  do  profess,  receive,  and  con- 
sent with  them  for  a  season  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel,  and  in  the  right  using  of  the  Sacraments  ; 
yea,  and  oftentimes  be  endued  with  right  excellent 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  be  to  be  accounted 
and  reputed  here  in  this  world,  to  be  in  the  num- 
ber of  the  said  very  members  of  Christ's  Mystical 
Body,  so  long  as  they  be  not  by  open  sentence  of 
excommunication  precided  and  excluded  from  the 
same."43  Now,  although  it  is  plainly  admitted,  as 
Cranmer  goes  on  to  mention,  that  such  persons  are 
not  members  of  Christ  "  in  very  deed,"  that  they 
cannot  be  looked  at  as  portions  of  the  Church  if 
the  employment  of  grace  be  considered,  how  can 
it  be  doubted  that  he  attributed  this  failure,  not  to 
the  absence  of  the  gift  of  grace,  but  to  the  careless- 
ness which  omitted  to  improve  it  ? 

The  work  under  consideration  contains,  more- 
over, not  a  few  distinct  statements,  that  an  especial 
gift  of  grace  is  bestowed  in  Holy  Baptism.  The 
u  Articles  about  Religion"  open  with  a  statement 
that,  touching  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  Baptism, 
men  must  believe  "  those  things  which  hath  been 
always,  by  the  whole  consent  of  the  Church  ap- 
proved, received,  and   used."44     Now  this  of  ne- 

43  Formularies,  p.  54.  4l  Ibid.  p.  6. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  211 

cessity  carries  us  back  to  the  statements  of  the 
Council  of  Orange,  where  a  gift  of  grace  is  said 
to  be  bestowed  upon  all  the  baptized.  Then  fol- 
low various  assertions,  as,  for  instance,  that  those 
"  who  minister  the  sacraments  of  God,"  "  by  the 
same  confer  and  give  the  graces  of  the  Holy 
Ghost:"45  that  the  circumstances  whereby  Bap- 
tism and  the  Holy  Eucharist  are  discriminated  from 
various  other  Christian  ordinances,  is  that  "  they 
have  annexed  and  conjoined  unto  their  said  visible 
signs  such  spiritual  graces,  as  whereby  our  sins  be 
remitted  and  forgiven."49  The  distinction  is  care- 
fully drawn  between-  the  efficacy  of  the  work 
wrought  upon  the  cross,  and  the  efficacy  of  the 
work  of  the  minister  ;  the  first  is  shown  to  contri- 
bute its  whole  value  to  the  ordinance:  "priests 
and  ministers  do  break  this"  (third)  "  command- 
ment, if,  in  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments, 
they  yield  not  the  whole  efficacy,  virtue  and  grace, 
thereof  to  our  Lord,  as  the  very  author  of  the  same  ; 
but  ascribe  the  said  efficacy,  virtue  and  grace, 
or  any  part  thereof,  to  themselves:"47  but  at  the 
same  time,  we  are  told  that  "  though  parents  be 
never  so  clean  purged  and  pardoned  of  their  origi- 
nal sin  by  Baptism,  and  by  the  grace  and  mercy 
of  God,  ....  yet,  nevertheless  the  children  be 
full  of  corruption  of  original  sin,  until  that  by  Bap- 
tism in  the  blood  of  Our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  they 
be  washed  and  purged  as  their  parents  were."48 
But  what  can  possibly  be  clearer  than  the  follow- 
ing passage  ?  Among  the  points  of  belief  is  said  to 
be: — 

45  Formularies,  p.  101.  46  Ibid.  p.  129. 

u  Ibid.  p.  140.  4S  Ibid.  p.  187. 


212 


THE    CHURCH  S    SERVICE 


"That  it  is  offered  unto  all  men  as  well  as  infants,  as  such 
as  have  the  use  of  reason,  that  by  Baptism  they  shall  have  re- 
mission of  all  their  sins,  the  grace  and  favour  of  Gotl,  and  ever- 
lasting life,49  according  to  the  saying  of  Christ,  '  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.'  Item — That  the  promise 
of  grace  and  everlasting  life  (which  promise  is  adjoined  unto  this 
Sacrament  of  Baptism)  pertaineth  not  only  unto  such  as  have 
the  use  of  reason,  but  also  to  infants,  innocents  and  children  ; 
and  that  they  ought,  therefore,  and  must  needs  be  baptized ; 
and  that  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  they  do  also  obtain  re- 
mission of  their  sins,  the  grace  and  favour  of  God,  and  be  made 
thereby  the  very  sons  and  children  of  God.  Insomuch  as  in- 
fants and  children  dying  in  their  infancy  shall  undoubtedly  be 
saved  thereby,  and  else  not.  Item — that  infants  must  needs  be 
christened,  because  they  be  born  in  original  sin,  which  sin 
must  needs  be  remitted  ;  which  cannot  be  done  but  by  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism,  whereby  they  receive  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  exerciseth  His  grace  and  efficacy  in  them,  and  cleanseth 
and  purifieth  them  from  sin  by  His  most  secret  virtue  and 
operation."50 

It  seems  astonishing  that  any  one  should  mis- 
understand this  language.  But  Mr.  Goode  sees 
nothing  in  it,  which  speaks  of  children  at  large  ; 
he  thinks  it  applicable  only  to  those  whom  a  pre- 
venient  decree  has  marked  out  for  salvation  ;  and 
he  thinks  this  explanation  may  be  reconciled  with 
the  unqualified  language  of  Cranmer,  because 
similar  expressions  occur  in  writers  by  whom  they 
are  modified  by  qualifications.  But  Cranmer  in- 
troduces no  such  qualifications.  It  had  been 
usual  for  fifteen  centuries,  to  speak  of  Baptism  as 
being  the  instrument  whereby  infants  were  united 
to  Christ.  The  first  writers  who  disputed  this 
truth  did  not  venture  to  throw  off*  the  established 

49  At  this  point  Cranmer  professed  himself  willing  that  the 
following  sentence  should  be  inserted  :  "  If  they  die  in  that 
grace,  which  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  is  conferred  to  them, 
and  not  by  sin  alter  the  same." — Jcnkyns's  Cran.  vol.  i.  p.  38 
and  77.  50  Formularies,  p.  9o. 


NOT   DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  213 

language,  but  they  introduced  qualifying  circum- 
stances, by  which  its  efficacy  might  be  limited. 
And  now  Mr.  Goode  would  have  us  suppose  that 
these  qualifications  not  only  indicate  the  judgment 
of  those  by  whom  they  were  made,  but  likewise  of 
those  by  whom  they  were  not  made.  Cranmer  is 
not  to  be  allowed  to  speak  generally  when  he  says, 
"  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  infants  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  because  Calvin  could  have  said  as 
much,  if  he  might  have  added  that  he  spoke  of 
that  which  was  possible  in  elect  infants.  It  may 
be  truly  affirmed  that  baptized  adults  will  be 
saved,  if  they  duly  receive  and  rightly  improve 
this  ordinance.  But  it  wrould  not  on  that  account 
be  safe  to  say,  unconditionally,  that  baptized 
adults  will  be  saved.  Neither  would  the  qualifi- 
cations which  are  used  by  others  have  justified 
Cranmer  in  making  this  general  assertion  respect- 
ing infants,  unless  he  had  believed  it.  And  this 
brings  us  back  to  what  was  shown  from  external 
evidence ;  i.  e.  that  at  that  period,  at  any  rate,  he 
could  not  have  disbelieved  the  doctrine  of  Baptis- 
mal Regeneration.  If  there  should  be  any  pas- 
sages, therefore,  in  the  "  Institution  of  a  Christian 
man,"  which  cannot  be  explained  on  the  principles 
previously  introduced — any  which  seem  (as  Mr. 
Goode  alleges)  to  have  a  decidedly  Calvinistic 
bearing,  and  to  derogate  from  the  responsibility 
of  man — I  have  only  to  remind  the  reader  that 
the  more  strong  such  passages  may  appear,  the 
more  decisive  will  be  their  testimony  against  Mr. 
Goode's  hypothesis  ;  since  they  would  prove  the 
more  plainly  that  the  Divine  decree  might  be  in- 
cautiously alluded  to  by  men  who  never  ques- 


214 

tioned  the  great  truth  of  the  re-creation  of  fallen 
Humanity  through  Sacramental  union  with  the 
Incarnate  Son. 

A  period  of  ten  years  from  the  time  when 
Cranmer  made  his  annotations  on  the  King's  Book, 
brings  us  to  the  year  1548,  in  which  King  Edward's 
First  Prayer-Book  was  commenced.  Now,  it  is 
upon  the  sentiments  which  he  entertained  at  that 
time,  that  the  interest  of  our  inquiry  into  Cran- 
mer's  sentiments  is  mainly  concentrated.  For  the 
object  is  not  to  know  wThat  he  thought  at  large, 
but  to  disprove  the  assertion  that  those  words  of 
our  Service-Book,  which  have  come  down  unal- 
tered from  that  period,  were  drawn  up  by  par- 
ties wTho  had  a  personal  motive  for  rendering 
them  equivocal.  Whatever  notions  Cranmer 
might  afterwards  have  adopted,  supposing,  of 
which  there  is  no  evidence,  that  he  afterwards  al- 
tered his  mind  respecting  Baptism,  as  he  did  re- 
specting the  Eucharist,  this  circumstance  would 
make  no  difference  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of 
those  expressions,  which  the  Church  had  previ- 
ously taken  under  her  guardianship. 

"  Rursus  cura  patrum  cadere  et  succedere  matrum 
Incipit." 

This  circumstance  gives  peculiar  importance  to 
two  documents — the  first  Book  of  Homilies,  which 
was  published  the  year  before,  and  Cranmer's  Ca- 
techism, published  the  same  year  with  the  com- 
position of  our  Baptismal  Offices.  As  a  record  of 
his  opinions,  of  course,  it  is  wholly  immaterial 
whether  the  Archbishop  employed  Justus  Jonas 
to  translate   this  Catechism  from  the    Latin,   or 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  215 

whether  he  translated  it  himself,  since  he  pub- 
lished it  under  his  own  name,  and  prefixed  a  let 
ter  to  King  Edward,  in  which  he  expressed  his 
hope  that  "  by  this  little  treatise  the  youth  of  your 
Grace's  realm  may  learn  to  know  God.51  Now, 
this  Catechism  not  only  contains  the  most  distinct 
statements  that  Regeneration  is  bestowed  in  Bap- 
tism, but  by  referring  every  individual  to  his  Bap- 
tism, as  a  test  whether  he  has  received  the  gift  of 
grace  or  no,  it  shows  that  the  general  statements, 
that  this  gift  is  bestowed  upon  children  in  Bap- 
tism, are  meant  to  be  truly  universal.  Mr.  Goode's 
common  objection  to  general  statements  of  the 
efficacy  of  Baptism  is,  that  they  are  intended  to 
include  the  case  of  adults  also  ;  now  in  adults 
certain  qualifications  are  required,  i.  e.  faith  and 
repentance,  and  since  such  general  statements, 
therefore,  must  have  been  designed  to  admit  one 
exception,  they  may  have  been  designed  to  admit 
another. 

Such  a  mode  of  reasoning  has  been  already 
stated  to  be  a  violation  of  the  received  adage,  ex- 
cept™ prohat  regulam  ;  by  which  it  is  not  intended 
that  you  may  take  any  exception  which  you 
please  to  every  rule,  but  that  the  fact  of  thinking 
it  necessary  to  justify  deviation  from  a  rule  in  one 
case,  shows  that  you  allow  its  authority  in  others. 
In  the  instance  before  us,  the  statements  of  Cran- 
mer  and  of  our  Service-Book,  that  in  the  case  of 
adults,  Our  Lord's  general  promises  in  Baptism 
require  to  be  qualified  by  the  condition  of  faith 
and  repentance,  show  that  in  the  case  of  infants, 

61  Jenkyns's  Cran.  i.  328. 


216 

in  which  no  such  condition  is  expressed,  His  ge- 
neral promises  must  be  understood  to  be  universal. 
But  in  the  case  of  this  Catechism,  the  objection 
which  has  been  noticed  cannot  even  rise.  For  it 
is  not  designed  for  adults,  but  for  the  profit  of 
"children  and  young  people."  It  states  to  them 
the  necessity  of  knowing  whether  they  have  re- 
ceived the  grace  of  the  new  Dispensation  ;  and 
the  manner  of  knowing  it.  "  It  is  very  necessary 
for  us  to  know  how  we  must  be  born  again,  and 
what  this  second  birth  is,  without  the  which  we 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Now, 
what  is  the  means  of  knowing  it?  "He  that  is 
baptized  may  assuredly  say  thus  :  I  am  not  now 
in  this  wTavering  opinion,  that  I  only  suppose  my- 
self to  be  a  Christian  man,  but  I  am  in  a  sure  belief 
that  I  am  made  a  Christian  man.  For  I  know  of  a 
surety  that  I  am  baptized,  and  I  am  sure  also  that 
Baptism  was  ordained  of  God,  and  that  he  which 
baptized  me,  did  it  by  God's  commission  and 
commandment :  and  the  Holy  Ghost  doth  wit- 
ness, that  he  which  is  baptized  hath  put  upon 
him  Christ.  Wherefore  the  Holy  Ghost  in  my 
Baptism  assureth  me  that  I  am  a  Christian  man."53 
One  more  passage  shall  be  extracted  from  this 
Catechism.  "  The  second  birth  is  by  the  water 
of  Baptism,  which  Paul  calleth  the  bath  of  rege- 
neration, because  our  sins  be  forgiven  us  in  Bap- 
tism, and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  poured  into  us,  as 
into  God's  beloved  children ;  so  that  by  the 
power  and  working  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  be 
born  again  spiritually,  and  made  new  creatures. 

52 Fallow's  "Baptismal  Offices  Illustrated,"  p.  74 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  217 

And  so  by  Baptism  we  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  shall  be  saved  for  ever,  if  wre  continue 
to  our  lives'  end  in  the  faith  of  Christ." 

It  is  a  matter  of  some  curiosity  to  see  how  Mr. 
Goode  can  escape  the  force  of  such  plain  language. 
He  freely  admits,  that  in  Cranmer's  works  there 
occur  "statements  which,  speaking  of  Baptism  in 
the  abstract,  connect  regeneration  with  it."  But 
these  general  statements,  he  says,  both  in  Cranmer 
and  the  Lutherans,  are  accompanied  by  quali- 
fications, which  show  that  they  were  not  meant  to 
be  universal.  These  qualifications  he  states  to 
arise  from  two  sources,  one,  that  though  the  pro- 
mise is  made  at  large,  its  effect  does  not  follow  un- 
less the  child  possesses  faith,  which  is  not  the  case 
with  all ;  the  other  qualification  is  supplied  by  a 
Divine  decree,  whereby  some  children  are  arbitra- 
rily doomed  to  bliss,  and  others  to  misery.  No 
doubt  these  two  views  might  coincide  in  the  same 
person,  for  those  who  refer  to  an  arbitrary  de- 
cree, might  suppose  that  the  gift  of  faith  is  the 
medium  through  which  it  operates.  But  in  Mr. 
Goode's  system,  the  two  qualifications  do  duty 
in  different  cases  :  the  Divine  decree  is  commonly 
refered  to  ;  but  when  writers  speak  in  a  decidedly 
Anti-Calvinistic  manner  of  the  universal  offer  of 
grace,  as  did  Luther  and  still  more  Melancthon, 
the  argument  from  the  necessity  of  faith  comes  in 
as  a  reserve.  Now  the  case  of  Cranmer  has  been 
rested  on  the  argument  from  decrees :  the  gene- 
ral language  of  the  Archbishop  is  supposed  to  be 
qualified  by  that  constant  reference  to  a  secret 
sentence  on  the  part  of  God,  which  was  ever  pre- 
sent, as  Mr.  Goode  feels  assured,  to  his  mind. 
19 


218  THE 

Here  then  the  argument  from  faith  is  as  needless, 
as  Cranmer's  own  words  show  it  to  be  inapplicable. 
For  Cranmer,53  as  Mr.  Goode  himself  allows,  did 
not  admit  the  qualification  of  faith  to  exist,  or  be 
possible  in  infants  :  indeed,  he  quotes  approvingly 
St.  Austin's  words,  that  children  "  have  not  yet 
the  mind  to  believe."54  But  when  we  come  to 
this  Catechism,  Mr.  Goode  suddenly  passes  over 
from  the  qualification  of  decrees  to  that  of  faith, 
and  suggests  an  explanation  of  Cranmer's  words, 
which  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  his  own  previous 
admissions.  The  reason  appears  to  be,  that  the 
Catechism  contains  some  such  distinct  statements 
of  an  Anti-Calvinistic  kind,  that  it  was  necessary 
to  have  recourse  to  the  other  solution.  "By  Bap- 
tism we  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  shall 
be  saved  for  ever,  if  we  continue  to  our  lives7  end 
in  the  faith  of  Christ."  Or  again,  "  when  they 
that  believe  and  be  baptized  do  continue  in  this 
their  faith  to  the  end  of  their  lives,  then  God  shall 
raise  them  up  from  death  to  life."55  Now,  Mr. 
Goode  having  fully  decided,  that  the  words  of 
the  Reformers  on  Regeneration  are  not  to  be  taken 
according  to  their  natural  sense,  and  having  two 
qualifications  present  to  his  own  mind,  one  or  the 
other  of  which  is  to  limit  all  the  general  expres- 
sions which   they  can    possibly   employ,  forgets 


53  In  the  articles  agreed  upon  with  the  Lutherans,  a.  v.  1538, 
the  contrast  drawn  between  children  and  adults  seems  to  imply, 
that  faith  is  not  required  in  the  former.  "  Nam  in  ratione  uten- 
tibus  necessum  est,  ut  fides  etiam  utentis  accedat." — Jenkyn^s 
Cran.  iv.  p.  28ri. 

54  Cranmer's  Works,  ii.  p.  385. 

55  "  Fallow's  Baptismal  offices,"  p.  72,  79. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALYINISTS.  219 

that,  as  regards  Cranmer,  he  has  as  effectually 
shut  himself  out  from  employing  the  one,  as  the 
Archbishop's  own  expressions  shut  him  out  from 
employing  the  other.  In  the  case  of  this  Catechism, 
therefore,  he  tells  us  that  "  according  to  the  well- 
known  doctrine  of  Luther,  faith  is  spoken  of  as 
essential  to  the  salutary  effect  of  Baptism."  That 
this  statement  is  ungrounded,  even  as  respects 
Luther,  has  been  already  shown  ;  but  if  it  were 
true  of  him,  what  has  this  to  do  with  Cranmer? 
Even  if  the  Catechism  were  not,  as  Cranmer's 
Book  against  Gardiner  says,  "  translated  by  him- 
self, and  set  forth,"  yet  its  very  title-page  states 
it  to  have  been  "overseen  and  corrected  by  the 
Archbishop."56  "  This  little  book,  by  me  offered 
to  your  Majesty,"57  was  received  by  Edward  from 
Cranmer,  and  not  from  the  Lutherans ;  and  the 
argument  from  faith  cannot  therefore  be  brought 
in  for  the  occasion,  to  supply  the  place  of  the 
argument  from  fatalism. 

The  main  works  of  Cranmer,  to  which  Mr. 
Goode  refers,  have  now  been  mentioned :  his 
other  extracts  prove  nothing,  but  that  Cranmer 
asserted  that  which  is  held  by  all  Christians, 
that  faith  and  love  are  essential,  if  the  recipient 
would  profit  by  that  baptismal  gift,  which  is  be- 
stowed upon  him  through  the  re-creation  of  his 
nature  in  Christ.  These  statements  have  no  ten- 
dency to  show  him  to  have  been  a  Calvinist ; 
while  passages  in  abundance  show  that  he  was 
not.  Take  the  following  wTords  from  the  First 
Book  of  Homilies,  published  under  his  auspices: 

56  Stryp^s  Cranmer,  u.  I.  7  Jenkyns's  Cran.  i.  329. 


220 


"  Let  us  beware,  good  Christian  people,  lest  that 
we  rejecting  or  casting  away  God's  word,  by  the 
which  we  obtain  and  retain  true  faith  in  God,  he 
not  at  length  cast  off  so  far,  that  we  become  as  the 
children  of  unbelief."33  Or  again  take  the  words 
of  his  answer  to  Gardiner:  "  As  the  devil  hath 
no  power  against  Christ,  so  hath  he  none  against 
us,  so  long  as  we  remain  grafted  in  that  stock, 
and  be  clothed  with  that  apparel,  and  harnessed 
with  that  armour."59  But  the  reader  shall  not  be 
detained  by  extracts  from  Cranmer's  later  works. 
For  the  point  of  moment  in  this  case,  is  the  view 
which  he  took  at  the  compilation  of  the  Prayer- 
Book,  a.  d.  1548.  And  again,  my  purpose  is 
not  to  show  that  he  asserted  the  reality  of  bap- 
tismal grace,  as  he  does  repeatedly  in  his  works 
against  Gardiner:  but  to  prove  only,  that  he  was 
not  possessed  by  such  extreme  Calvinism,  as 
must  render  such  words  unmeaning.  Now,  it 
should  not  be  forgotten,  that  in  this  case  the  bur- 
den of  proof  lies  wholly  on  those,  who  would  in- 
terpret our  Formularies  in  a  different  sense  from 
that  which  their  words  naturally  convey.  From 
the  time  of  Pelagius  it  had  always  been  supposed, 
in  conformity  with  the  decree  of  the  Council  of 
Orange,  that  all  baptized  infants  receive  grace. 
Why,  then,  are  we  to  attribute  any  other  meanin 
to  the  general  statements  of  a  similar  kind,  which 
occur  in  the  private  writings  of  the  Reformers  ; 

58  Vide  the  whole  Homily.  "  A  sermon,  how  dangerous  a 
thing  it  is  to  fall  from  God."  It  would  be  easy,  of  course,  to 
make  copious  extracts  to  the  same  effect  from  Cranmer's  own 
"Homily  of  Salvation." 

59  Defence,  cap.  xii. ;  Jcnkyns's  Cranmcr,  ii.  p.  303. 


o* 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY     CALVINISTS.  221 

or  were  introduced  into  the  public  offices  of  the 
Church  ?  It  is  for  those  who,  like  Mr.  Goode, 
suggests  that  some  such  qualifications  are  implied, 
to  give  distinct  proof  of  it.  But  Mr.  Goode  is 
compelled  to  allow  that,  in  the  case  of  Cranmer, 
there  is  no  direct  proof  that  any  such  qualification 
was  thought  of.  While  he  conceives  that  it  may 
be  gathered  from  "his  general  doctrine,"  he  ad- 
mits that  "  no  direct  testimony  can  be  obtained 
from  his  writings  respecting  the  particular  case 
of  infants ;  his  subject  not  leading  him  any 
where  to  this  point."  Now  a  general  concur- 
rence might  be  sufficient  to  prove  acquiescence  in 
received  opinions ;  but  what  force  can  it  have 
when  a  wholly  new  position  is  to  be  adopted  ? 
Why  should  Cranmer  be  deemed  to  mean  differ- 
ently from  all  his  predecessors  unless  he  says  so  ? 
Surely,  it  is  a  most  rash  and  unwarrantable  as- 
sumption to  suppose  that  his  distinct,  repeated, 
and  positive  assurances,  wTere  meant  to  be  set 
aside,  on  the  ground  of  a  secret  condition,  of 
which  previous  writers  had  afforded  no  precedent, 
and  which  was  never  expressed  by  himself  in  his 
numerous  works. 

So  much  respecting  Cranmer.  But  there  are 
two  persons,  to  wrhose  judgment  Mr.  Goode 
attaches  such  great  importance,  as  indicating  the 
Archbishop's  mind,  Peter  Martyr  and  Martin 
Bucer,  that  something  must  be  said  respecting 
them.  Now,  considering  that  these  persons  had 
very  recently  arrived  in  England  when  Edward's 
first  book  was  published  (Martyr  about  the  end 
of  1547,  Bucer  some  time  later,)  their  previous 
influer.oe  upon  Cranmer  cannot  have  been  im- 
19* 


222  the  church's  service 

portant.  And  since  the  question  of  Divine.  De- 
crees had  not  as  yet  become  a  leading  matter  of 
controversy,  its  connexion  with  the  subject  of 
baptismal  grace  was  not  a  point  by  which  men's 
agreement  or  disagreement  would  be  tested.  It 
was  very  possible,  therefore,  for  the  Archbishop 
to  invite  and  entertain  learned  foreigners,  with 
whom  he  agreed  on  many  practical  questions  of 
immediate  interest,  while  all  along  there  lay  at 
the  bottom  such  a  difference  respecting  the  theory 
of  Necessity,  as  is  indicated  by  Cranmer's  works. 
That  such  was  the  case  is  sufficiently  proved  by 
the  fact,  that  Ochin,  who  is  also  said  to  have  re- 
ceived a  specific  invitation  from  Cranmer,  and  of 
whom  Strype  tells  us  that  he  was  entertained  by 
him  along  with  his  other  visiters,  finally  avowed 
himself  a  Socinian.  Considering  the  nature  of 
that  heresy,  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  its 
seeds  were  not  even  then  latent  in  his  mind. 
Now  this  circumstance,  of  which  Strype  takes 
no  notice,  shows  that  theoretical  differences  may 
have  existed  among  those,  whom  the  Archbishop 
found  useful  assistants  in  his  practical  designs. 

The  authority  of  Bucer  has  no  doubt  been  the 
more  referred  to,  because  he  had  been  engaged 
in  drawing  up  the  Cologne  Service-Book  of  Arch- 
bishop Herman,  a.  d.  1543.  This  was  no  doubt 
consulted  in  the  revision  of  our  baptismal  service  ; 
and  a  single  Prayer,  the  Thanksgiving  after  the 
Gospel,  has  not  been  traced  higher.  But  then  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  Cologne  Service- 
Book  was  drawn  from  that  of  Nuremberg,  which 
itself  was  only  a  re-casting  of  the  ancient  bap- 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  223 

tismal  office  of  Germany.  When  Dr.  Pusey60  pub- 
lished the  modern  baptismal  Offices  in  a  tabular 
form,  he  was  led  by  its  internal  structure  to  class 
Herman's  Service  among  those  of  "  Churches 
upon  the  Ancient  Model,"  by  way  of  discrimi- 
nating it  from  those  of  the  "  Reformed  Churches." 
The  use  therefore  which  was  made  by  our  Re- 
formers of  Herman's  Service-Book,  did  not  imply 
any  accordance  with  the  private  opinions  of 
Bucer,  since  it  was  only  one  instance  of  that  rule 
which  has  been  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Scott ; 
"  whence  did  the  Church  of  England  derive  all 
the  peculiar  language,  which  she  employs  con- 
cerning newly-baptized  infants?  She  did  not 
invent  it,  she  borrowed  it  from  primitive  times."61 
And  further,  it  must  be  remembered  that  Bucer 
occupied  an  intermediate  position,  which,  in  many 
respects  brought  him  nearer  to  the  Lutherans,  by 
whom  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  grace  was  affirmed, 
than  to  the  Zuinglians,  by  whom  it  was  rejected. 
In  compiling  Herman's  Service-Book,  he  had 
been  associated  with  Melancthon;  and  it  was  not 
possible  therefore  that  in  that  case,  he  should 
have  adopted  the  Anti-Sacramental  system. 
Again,  in  1536,  he  had  joined  in  articles  of 
agreement  with  the  Lutherans,  in  which  the 
reality  of  Baptismal  grace  is  plainly  admitted.  It 
is  to  be  regretted  that  Mr.  Goode,  who  refers  to 
this  conference  at  Wittenberg,  does  not  insert  the 
resolutions    which    were    adopted.63      They    are 

00  "Scriptural  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,"  first  edit.  a.  d.  1836. 

61  Scott's  Defence,  p.  47. 

62  "  Cumque  de  talibus  infantibus,  qui  sunt  in  Ecclesia  dictum 
sit:  Non  est  voluntas  Tatris,  ut  pcreat  unus  ex  illis;  constat 


224: 

introduced  in  Bucer's  "  Scripta  Anglicana,"  as 
though  indicating  the  principles  which  were 
avowed  by  him  when  he  came  into  this  country. 
Now  these  articles  show  that  he  fully  adopted  the 
tenet  of  Baptismal  grace — in  that  sense,  in  which 
it  was  understood  by  Luther  and  Melancthon. 
If  his  words  then  were  inconsistent  with  some 
theoretic  notions  of  the  Divine  Decrees,  which 
were  not  shared  by  those  with  whom  he  professed 
agreement,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he  was 
practising  any  dishonest  concealment ;  for  the 
different  fragments  of  which  his  judgment  was 
composed,  may  have  remained  in  his  mind, 
without  being  fitted  together.  And  this  is  the 
true  cause  of  those  orthodox  expressions,  which 
found  their  way  even  into  various  Zuinglian  Con- 
fessions ;  so  that  to  trace  a  work  to  "a  staunch 
Calvinist,"  is  no  proof  as  Mr.  Goode  seems  to 
suppose,  that  it  may  not  speak  the  language  of 
the  ancient  Church. 


infantibus  per  baptismum  conlingere  remissionem  peccati  origi- 
nalis,  et  donationem  Spiritus  S.  qui  in  eis  efficax  est  pro  ipso- 
rum  mode.  Rejicimus  enim  errorem  illorum,  qui  imaginantur 
infantes  placere  Deo,  et  salvos  fieri  sine  actione  ilia  Dei,  cum 
Christus  clare  dicat,  nisi  quis  renatus  fuerit  ex  aqua  et  spiritu, 
non  potest  intrare  in  regnum  Dei. 

"  Et  si  igitur  nos  non  intelligamus,  qualis  sit  ilia  actio  Dei  in 
infantibus,  tamen  certum  est  in  eis  novos  et  sanctos  motus 
effici :  sicut  et  in  Joanne  in  utero  matris  novi  motus  fiebant. 
Nam  etiamsi  non  est  imaginandum,  quod  infantes  intelligant, 
tamen  illi  motus  et  inclinationes  ad  credendum  Christo,  et 
diligendum  Deum  sunt  aliquo  modo  similes  motui  fidei  et  di- 
lectionis.  Hoc  dicimus,  cum  infantes  dicimus  fidem  habere. 
Ideo  enim  sic  loquimur,  ut  intelligi  possit,  quod  infantes  non 
tiant  sancti  et  salvi  sine  actione  divina  in  ipsis." — Bueen 
Scripta  Anglic,  p.  668. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  225 

And  here  I  must  protest  against  the  injustice 
with  which  Mr.  Goode  treats  Archbishop  Laurence. 
I  say  nothing  of  the  criminative  tone  which  Mr. 
Goode  employs  respecting  living  writers  of  every 
rank  ;  both  because  it  would  be  a  needless  pre- 
sumption to  interfere  in  such  personal  questions, 
and  because  I  am  satisfied  that  language  of  this 
sort  is  its  own  best  antidote.  Neither  would  I 
enter  upon  a  general  defence  of  Archbishop 
Laurence  :  indeed,  I  am  ready  to  allow  that  it 
may  be  said  of  him  in  a  measure,  as  it  was  of 
JBullinger,  lqulil  Melancthonizait :  had  it  been 
otherwise  he  would  not  have  taken  for  granted 
the  unjust  accusations  of  the  Lutheran  writers 
against  the  Schoolmen.  But  to  Mr.  Goode's 
hostile  judgment  I  would  oppose  the  opinion  of 
a  less  partial  writer,  who  speaks  of  Laurence's 
Bampton  Lectures,  as  "  a  work  which  contains, 
in  small  space,  a  larger  quantity  of  valuable  ma- 
terials and  original  research,  than  almost  any 
work  I  ever  met  with."63  The  point,  however, 
to  which  I  desire  to  call  present  attention,  is  the 
charge  which  Mr.  Goode  founds  upon  the  case 
ofBucer.  " Laurence,"  he  says,  "has  by  some 
unaccountable  mistake,  put  down"  Bucer  "  as  a 
Lutheran,  and  hence  used  arguments  grounded 
upon  Bucer's  case  to  the  infinite  damage  of  his 
own  cause."-31      Now  it  is  not  true,  on  the  one 


03  Faber,  on  "Primitive  Election,"  p.  214. 

64  And  again;  "in  short,  the  Archbishop  has  made  a  series  of 
mistakes,  and  in  consequence  landed  himself  upon  ground,  where 
all  that  is  left  to  him  is  to  surrender  at  discretion.  He  has 
imagined  Bucer  to  be  a  Lutheran,"  &c. — Id.  p.  405. 

"Nulli  gravis  cat  percussus  Achilles." 


226  the  church's  service 

hand,  that  Laurence  puts  down  Bucer  as  a  Lu- 
theran ;  nor  yet  on  the  other  was  Bucer  an  Anti- 
Lutheran,  as  Mr.  Goode's  language  would  seem 
to  imply.  Laurence  speaks  of  him  as  a  mediator 
between  the  parties  of  Luther  and  Zuingle,  who 
on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist  was  followed  in  a 
measure  by  Calvin.05  Again,  he  observes  upon 
the  contrariety  which  existed  between  him  and 
the  Lutheran  leaders,  noticing,  therefore,  that 
Bucer  was  "  not  a  too. favourable  judge"63  of  the 
sentiments  of  Melancthon.  Again,  when  men- 
tioning that  "  the  leaders  of  the  Reformation  on 
both  sides  assembled  at  Wittenberg,"  a.  d.  1536, 
he  adds,  "  Bucer  spoke  on  the  part  of  the 
Zuinglians."67  Indeed,  it  would  seem  that  the 
charge,  repeated  more  than  once,  that  Bucer  had 
been  mistaken  for  a  Lutheran,  is  grounded  only 
upon  the  fact  that  Laurence  speaks  of  the  lan- 
guage of  Herman's  Service  as  Lutheran.  But 
for  this  expression  Laurence  gives  ample  grounds 
— namely,  that  Melancthon  co-operated  with 
Bucer  in  the  compilation  of  the  Cologne  Office  ; 
and  further,  that  "it  was  not  original,  but  in  a 
great  degree  borrowed  from  a  Liturgy  previously 
established  at  Norimberg."Gs  So  that  Laurence 
really  represents  Bucer  as  more  completely  iden- 
tified with  the  Zuinglians,  than,   considering  his 


65  Bampton  Lecture,  ii.  p.  48. 

66  Id.  note  13,  on  Scrm.  vii. 

67  "Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  upon  the  Efficacy  of 
Baptism  Vindicated  from  Misrepresentation,"  by  Richard 
Laurence,  part  i.  p.  90. 

6S  Bamp.  Lect.  note  ii.  on  Serm.  viii. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  227 

accordance  with  Luther   in  1536,  can  be   alto- 
gether justified. 

Even  as  respects  Peter  Martyr,  Mr.  Goode's 
strictures  upon  Laurence  are  hardly  justifiable. 
"It  is  likewise  certain,"  says  Laurence,  "  that 
both  immediately  before  and  after"  Martyr's  "  ar- 
rival here,  the  sentiments  of  Cranmer  were  com- 
pletely at  variance  with  his,  upon  one  of  the  most 
important  topics  of  the  day,  viz.,  the  Sacramental 
Presence."  On  this  passage  Mr.  Goode  observes, 
that  "  evidence  is  producible  that"  Laurence  "  was 
mistaken."  What  is  the  evidence  ?  It  appears 
from  letters  recently  printed,  and  to  which 
Laurence  had  no  access,  that,  September  28th, 
1548,  Cranmer  was  said,  by  one  who  probably 
agreed  with  Martyr,  to  have  "  come  over  to  our 
opinion  ;"  and  that  on  the  14th  December  fol- 
lowing, "  contrary  to  general  expectation"  he 
avowed  the  same.  But  when  did  Martyr  come 
into  England  ?  He  left  Strasburg  in  November, 
1547,  and  was  in  England  before  the  end  of  the 
year.  And,  therefore,  that  Cranmer  should  be 
spoken  of  as  having  "  come  over"  to  his  opinion 
the  following  autumn,  if  so  it  were,  is  no  proof 
that  Laurence  "  was  mistaken"  in  supposing  that 
they  differed  "immediately  after  his  arrival." 
But  there  is  no  proof  that  these  foreigners  had  at 
any  time  that  complete  agreement  with  the  Eng- 
lish Baptismal  Service,  which  Mr.  Goode  attributes 
to  them.  Their  approbation  of  it  is  limited  alto- 
gether to  that  second  Revision,  from  which  Bucer's 
influence  had  obtained  the  omission  of  a  most  im- 
portant part — the  Prayer  of  Consecration,  which 


228 

has  been  since  restored.  And  Beza69  vindicates 
Bucer  from  the  imputation  either  of  having  been 
concerned  in  the  compilation  of  our  Prayer-Book, 
or  of  having  agreed  with  it.  In  respect  to  Peter 
Martyr,  the  evidence  of  dissent  is  still  more  de- 
cisive. For  it  is  admitted,  that  in  the  composition 
of  the  Baptismal  Office,  Lutheran  models  were 
freely  followed,  and  when  Cranmer  would  explain 
the  nature  of  Baptism,  he  employed  a  Catechism 
derived  from  German  sources.  But  Martyr's70 
judgment  of  the  Lutheran  Formularies  was  so 
entirely  hostile,  that  he  objected  to  employ  the 

69  "  Quod  ad  illarn  Anglicanam  Reformationem  attinet,  quum 
dicis  earn  ex  Buceri  consilio  ac  voluntate  fuisse  institutam,  mag- 
nam  optimo  viro  injuriam  facis,"  &c.  "Nedum  ut  ilia  forma 
Anglicana  acquieverit,  cujus  ilium  auctorem  falso  et  impudenter 
facis." — Bezce  Trac.  Theol.  ii.  323.  Vide.  Laurence's  Bamp. 
Led.  note  20,  in  Serm.  ii. 

70  Some  English  exiles  at  Frankfort  "  carried  their  children  to 
be  baptized  by  Lutheran  Priests."  Martyr,  when  consulted, 
objected  to  the  practice.  "  They  said,  <  the  difference  was  not 
so  great  between  us  in  the  matter  of  the  Sacrament.'  But 
Martyr  said,  '  it  was  of  great  moment,  because  in  it  there  was  a 
contest  concerning  the  chief  head  of  religion.'  They  added, 
♦  that  the  Lutheran  divines  did  think,  in  the  matter  of  baptism, 
as  they  did  !'  But  Martyr  answered  '  that  they  were  mistaken; 
for  those  divines  affirmed  more  of  the  Sacrament  than  is  Jit  ,- 
a:id  tied  the  grace  of  God  to  Baptism  ;  and  that  they  thought 
there  was  no  salvation  without  baptism  ;  and  that  they  affirmed 
that  infants  had  faith." — Strype's  Cranmer,  B.  iii.  cap.  xv. 
How  incomplete  was  Martyr's  approval  of  our  Service-Book,  is 
manifest  ai*o  from  his  own  words  to  Bullinger,  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  second  Liturgy.  He  writes,  June,  1552,  "  Re- 
formatio in  Anglia  ob  rem  sacramentariam  ohtineri  nequit. 
Liber  tamen  rituum  ecclesiae  ac  administrationis  sacramentorum 
est  emendatus.  An  usus  sacramentorum  gratiam  Dei  conferat, 
magnopcre  inter  se  disceptant  Angli,  qui  ab  operum  mentis  vix 
avelli  possunt." — CardweU's  Liturgies  of  Edward,  Introduc- 
tion, p.  xxxiii. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  229 

services  of  those  who  used  them.  And  his  objec- 
tion seems  to  have  rested  upon  that  very  asser- 
tion of  the  reality  of  Baptismal  grace,  which 
they  share  with  the  Offices  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

From  the  First  Book  of  King  Edward,  I  pass  at 
once  to  the  additions  to  our  Catechism  after  the 
Hampton  Conference."  For  the  alteration  of  the 
Prayer-Book,  a.  d.  1552  (King  Edward's  Second 
Book,)  and  its  resumption  in  the  first  year  of  Eliz- 
abeth, a.  d.  1559,  were  events  by  which  the  mean- 
ing of  our  present  offices  are  not  affected.  The 
great  change  in  1552  was  the  excision  of  many 
important  usages.  But  the  question  respects  not 
the  meaning  of  that  which  was  excinded,  but  of 
that  which  remains.  Neither  is  it  necessary  to 
take  any  notice  of  the  controversy  on  Free  Will, 
which  divided  the  Reformers  in  the  time  of  Mary. 
A  book,  it  seems,  was  written  by  Ridley,  which 
has  not  come  down  to  us.  From  the  character  of 
the  man,  and  his  own  mention  that  he  feared  to 
make  any  assertion,  to  which  the  very  words  of 
Scripture  did  not  lead  him,  it  seems  wholly  impos- 
sible that  he  should  have  made  any  rash  state- 
ments respecting  the  Divine  Decrees.  And  had 
he  done  so,  the  Calvinistic  party  which  for  a 
time  was  in  the  ascendent,  was  not  likely  to  have 
allowed  his  book  to  be  forgotten.  But  it  could 
indicate  nothing  respecting  the  meaning  of  those 
statements  of  our  Service-Book,  which  had  already 
been  fixed  by  the  Church. 

The  addition  made  to  the  Catechism  after  the 
Hampton  Conference,  a.  d.  1604,  is  of  considerable 
importance  in  the  present  inquiry,  in  consequence 


230 

of  the  subjects  respecting  which  it  treats.  All 
which  it  is  necessary  to  say  here,  is  that  its  sup- 
posed author,  Bishop  Overall,  was  certainly  not 
so  wedded  to  Calvinistic  opinions,  as  to  be  unable 
to  assent,  himself,  to  those  distinct  statements 
respecting  Baptismal  grace,  into  which  his  words 
have  guided  so  many  generations.  His  views  on 
the  subject  are  explained  with  great  clearness  in  a 
(Latin)  statement,  which  Mr.  Goode  attributes  to 
him  ;  and  with  still  more  fulness  in  a  very  interest- 
ing letter  on  the  subject  which  he  addressed  to 
Grotius.  Their  peculiarity  lies  in  this  circumstance 
— that  after  setting  forth  the  general  doctrine  of 
God's  Decrees,  somewhat  in  the  manner  which  has 
been  attributed  to  the  ancient  Church  in  the  last 
Chapter,  and  affirming  that  sufficient  grace  is  be- 
stowed upon  all  members  of  Christ's  Body  ;  he 
proceeds  to  speak  of  a  second  and  specific  Decree 
(to  which  he  supposed  that  St.  Austin  first  called 
attention,)  the  object  whereof  is  to  bestow  upon 
some  few  persons  an  irresistible  gift  of  grace, 
which  is  never  departed  from.  "  This  second 
Decree,"  he  says,  "  does  not  supersede  the  pre- 
vious arrangement"  (whereby  men  are  elected 
into  the  membership  of  the  Church,)  "but  com- 
pletes it ;  and,  therefore,  this  system  also  is  pious, 
or  at  least  admissible."  The  objections  to  this 
notion  are  explained  with  great  clearness  by 
Hammond,71  who  shows  that  its  results  may  "  ra- 

71  "  Your  supposed  intricacy  is  what  it  is  that  makes  sufficient 
grace  to  be  effectual  to  any.  1  say  the  parable  of  the  sower 
was  intended  by  Christ  on  purpose  to  answer  that  question,  for 
here  we  see,  the  seed  being  the  same  (whether  that  were  the 
Word  or  grace  it  matters  not,  as  long  as  it  is  remembered  that 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  231 

tlier  be  attributed  to  God's  special  Providence, 
than  His  special  grace."72  But  whether  this,  as 
Hammond  seems  to  have  imagined,  was  Overall's 
design,  or  whether  he  supposed  that  while  the 
majority  would  owe  their  salvation  to  sufficient 
grace,  a  few  persons  might  be  favoured  with  a 
gift  which  was  irresistible,  it  is  clear,  at  all  events, 
that  he  had  no  such  adherence  to  the  Calvinistic 
system,  as  would  be  incompatible  with  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  grace.  For  he  speaks  of  the 
denial  that  sufficient  grace  is  given  to  all  members 
of  the  Church,  as  a  position  which  was  not  to  be 
tolerated,73  inasmuch  as  it  militated  against  the 

the  Word  is  the  vehicle  of  grace,  and  the  instrument  of  convey- 
ing it  to  the  heart,)  all  the  difference  taken  notice  of  is  only  in 
the  soil,"  &c. — Hammond's  Second  Letter  to  Sanderson,  Works, 
i.  685.  Compare  the  ancient  Canon  against  re-baptizing : 
"  Quia  non  inhcit  semen  seminantis  iniquitas." — Wilkiris's  Con- 
di i.  5. 

72  u  In  Overall's  scheme  the  effectualness  seems  to  be  attributed 
to  the  giving  what  is  given  tempore  congruo,  at  a  time  (whether 
by  sickness  or  by  any  other  circumstance  of  their  state)  they  are 
foreseen  by  God  to  be  so  qualified  and  disposed,  that  they  shall 
infallibly  accept  Christ  offered,  on  His  own  conditions,  and  so 
convert  and  receive  the  seed  into  good  ground,  and  so  persevere 
and  be  saved,  when  the  same  man,  out  of  those  circumstances, 
would  not  have  been  wrought  on  by  the  same  means.  And  if 
this  be  it  which  you  mean,  as  I  doubt  not  that  it  is,  and  herein 
you  agree  with  Bishop  Overall,"  &c. — Hammond's  Letter  to 
Sanderson,  concerning  God's  Grace  and  Decrees,  Works,  i.  676. 

73  "Alice  sentential  ex  utraque  parte,  siveex  solo  absoluto  de- 
creto  Dei,  sive  ex  praevisa  co-operatione  humana,  quae  ultra  pro- 
greditur,  ut  aut  ex  una  parte  sic  faciant  homines  hberos  ut  simul 
faciant  sacriiegos,  aut  ex  altera  parte  sic  adstruant  decreturn  Dei 
absolulum  gratiamque  efficacem,  ut  tollant  voluntateni  salutis 
communis  conditionalem,  et  gratiam  sufficientem,  nullo  modo  in 
ecclesia  Dei  ferendae  sunt,  ut  quae  pugnent  cum  bonitate  Dei," 
&c. — Prsestantium  Virorum  Epistolse,  No.  210,  p.  355.  Am- 
sterdam, 1704. 


232  the  church's  service 

goodness  and  truth  of  God,  He  professes,  more- 
over, that  his  rule  of  interpretation  is  the  consent 
of  the  ancient  Fathers  ;74  and  the  party  and  sys- 
tem of  Calvin  he  mentions  with  no  kind  of  appro- 
bation ;  calling  the  one  the  sect  of  Zeno,"75  and 
the  other  the  "  fatal  dogma  of  Predestination." 

There  is  nothing,  then,  in  Overall's  tenets  which 
can  justify  any  one  in  taking  his  statements  in  any 
other  than  their  natural  and  obvious  sense.  And 
when  we  pass  onward  to  the  final  settlement  of  the 
present  Liturgy,  a.  d.  1662,  there  is  still  less 
reason  to  doubt  that  those  who  finally  arranged  the 
words,  as  at  present  employed,  designed  to  affirm 
the  reality  of  baptismal  grace.  For  not  only  were 
all  the  Bishops  who  conducted  the  Savoy  Con- 
ference, to  use  Mr.  Goode's  phraseology,  "  of  the 
Laudian  party  ;"  but  he  allows  that  it  had  the 
majority  in  the  Covocation.  But  he  supposes  that 
he  is  not  bound  by  the  opinions  of  these  divines, 
which  he  admits  to  be  hostile  to  his  own  ;  because 
the  Act  of  Supremacy  was  not  passed  by  them, 
but  by  Parliament ;  and  because  Parliament  did 
not  sanction  "  the  book  of  Common-Prayer  as  the 
book  of  the  convocation  of  that  period,"  but  the 
book  sanctioned  by  the  Act  is  "  the  book  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  with  certain  alterations  and  additions." 
So  much,  of  course   is   true,  that  no  new  sense 


74"Tota  Prsedestinationis  nostra  cognitio,  primum  ex  verbo 
sivinitus  revelato  in  S.  S.,  turn  ex  sensu  et  doct.rina  antiquorum 
Patrum  sacram  doctrinam  interprctantium  sumenda  est,  juxta 
illud  Vincentii  Lyrinensis,"  &c. — Id. 

75  "  iEgre  cedet  Zenonia  secta  moderatis  sententiis  .  .  .  scd 
mordicus  ad  iliud  fatale  prsedestinationis  dogma  ....  adheerc- 
scent." — Id. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  233 

was  given  to  those  ancient  words  of  the  Church, 
which  had  been  received  from  the  time  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  and  before  it.  But  how  can  those  who 
deny  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  grace  receive  those 
"alterations  and  additions"  which  are  not  attri- 
butable to  the  age  of  Elizabeth?  Mr.  Goode  has 
avowed  his  dislike  of  the  language  employed  in 
the  Prayer-Book,  "  while,"  he  says,  "knowing 
the  meaning  intended  to  be  affixed  to  it  by  those 
who  applied  it  in  our  Formularies,  I  have  not  the 
smallest  difficulty  in  accepting  it."  But  what 
ground  has  he  for  the  same  confidence  respecting 
the  intentions  of  those  who  added  to  the  Prayer- 
Book  in  1662?  Their  intention  of  asserting  the 
reality  of  baptismal  grace  is  as  well-known,  as  the 
words  are  express  in  which  they  have  asserted  it. 
The  service  for  adult  Baptism  is  to  be  dated  wholly 
to  their  times.  Can  there  be  the  least  doubt  with 
what  intention  they  compiled  it  ?  Its  words  supply 
one  important  link  in  the  chain  of  argument,  be- 
cause they  establish,  beyond  doubt,  the  Church's 
opinion,  that  those  who  come  as  devout  and  well- 
disposed  catechumens  partake  of  Regeneration  only 
by  that  act  of  Baptism,  whereby  they  are  engrafted 
into  the  Body  of  Christ.  Thus  is  the  efficacy  of  the 
human  agent  thrown  altogether  into  the  back-ground, 
and  the  whole  weight  of  this  momentous  change  is 
made  to  rest  upon  that  gift  of  grace,  which  enters 
into  the  line  of  humanity  through  the  Mediation  of 
Christ  Our  Lord.  Now  this  statement  of  the  Ser- 
vice for  baptizing  adults,  if  taken  literally,  is,  of 
course,  inconsistent  with  Mr.  Goode's  opinion, 
that  in  adults  Baptism  is  only  the  seal  of  a  bless- 
ing already  possessed,  and  that  no  persons  are 
20* 


234 


regenerated  in  Baptism  whose  regeneration  was 
not  commenced  before  it.  And  why  are  not  the 
words  of  this  Service  to  be  taken  in  their  literal 
sense  ?  Certainly  not  from  any  knowledge  of  the 
design  of  those  who  composed  them.  For  the 
compilers  were  the  very  parties  to  whom  Mr. 
Goode  imputes  a  wish  to  have  "  introduced  vari- 
ous alterations  into  our  Formularies,"  with  a  view 
of  giving  more  distinct  expression  to  their  own 
sentiments.  Mr.  Goode  protests  altogether  against 
the  divines,  who  conducted  the  Savoy  Conference, 
and  throws  himself  by  preference  upon  the  judg- 
ment of  Convocation.  But  of  the  three  bishops, 
comprised  in  its  Committee  for  compiling  the  form 
of  Adult  Baptism,  two,  Laney  and  Henchman, 
had  been  Savoy  Commissioners  (the  latter,  says 
Baxter,  "as  high  in  his  principles  and  resolutions 
as  any  of  them,")76  and  Griffith  the  third,77  though 
not  appointed,  had  taken  part  in  the  Commission. 
There  can  be  no  question,  then  in  what  manner 
they  must  have  regarded  the  subject.  And  although 
Mr.  Goode  seems  to  suppose  that  Convocation 
was  likely  to  be  more  favourable  to  his  views  than 
the  divines  at  the  Savoy,  yet  the  evidence  supplied 
by  its  history  is  wholly  adverse  to  such  a  sup- 
position. The  requirements  of  Baxter  upon  this 
head  were,  mainly  that  the  Church  should  so  far 
relax  her  doctrine  as  to  allow  of  that  sense,  which 
Mr.  Goode  would  assign  to  her  words.  There  is 
much  significance,  therefore,  in  his  statement  that 
"the  new  Parliament  and  Convocation  sat  down, 
being  constituted  of  men   fitted  and  devoted  to 

76  Life,  by  Sylvester,  Part  ii,  363.      77  Baxter's  Life,  p.  364. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  235 

the  Diocesan  interest."73  And  their  choice  of 
leaders  plainly  indicated  this  inclination  :  for  they 
chose  Fearne,  an  old  Chaplain  of  Charles  I.,  for 
their  first,  and  afterwards  Barwick,  one  of  the 
Savoy  Divines,  for  their  second  Prolocutor.  Mr. 
Goode  will  not  judge  favourably  of  the  moderation 
of  those  "clergy  of  the  Convocation,  who  con- 
stantly came  to"  Peter  Heylin  "  in  matters  relating 
to  the  Church,  because  he  had  been  himself  an 
ancient  clerk  in  the  old  convocations."79  And 
yet  it  would  not  seem  that  parties  ran  high,  since 
it  is  related,  "that  in  this  Convocation  there  were 
no  debates  to  speak  of."80 

But  besides  the  "addition"  of  the  services  for 
baptizing  adults,  the  Convocation  of  1662  be- 
queathed some  most  material  "  alterations"  to 
their  successors.  And  these  alterations,  though 
not  touching  directly  on  the  Divine  Decrees,  can- 
not be  supposed  to  have  been  made  with  any  Cal- 
vinistic  bias  ;  nor  could  it  be  thought  that  those 
who  made  them  would  be  very  anxious  even  to 
render  them  compatible  with  Calvinism.  The 
first  was  the  introduction  of  the  Thanksgiving  into 
the  Office  for  Private  Baptism  in  houses  by  which 
the  Regeneration  of  infants  is  affirmed — even 
when  there  are  no  sponsors  ;  the  second,  which 
is  of  still  greater  moment,  was  the  restoration  of 
that  prayer  for  the  consecration  of  the  element  of 
water,  which  had  been  excluded  from  King  Ed- 
ward's second  Prayer-Book  at  the  instance  of 
Bucer. 


78  Baxters  Life,  Pt.  ii.  p.  334.  "9  Heylin's  Life,  p.  xxvi. 

80  Kennett's  Register,  p.  450. 


236 

The  first  alteration  seems  to  have  been  ground- 
ed on  a  misrepresentation,  which  the  Puritan 
party  had  made  of  the  subsequent  words  of  recep- 
tion ;  "Give  thy  Holy  Spirit  to  this  infant,  that 
he,  being  born  again,  and  being  made  heir  of 
everlasting  salvation,"  &c.  This  led  them  into 
the  error,  which  has  sometimes  been  made  re- 
specting the  Collect  for  Christmas-Day,  of  fancying 
that  the  child  "is  now  supposed  to  be  regener- 
andus,  not  regeneratus ;"  to  be  a  candidate,  that 
is,  for  regeneration  ;  not  one  who  has  been  already 
regenerated.  To  shut  out  the  possibility  of  such 
a  cavil,  the  thanksgiving  in  question,  appears  to 
have  been  introduced.  And  it  has  had  the  happy 
effect  of  shutting  out  also  the  Pelagian  notion,  that 
the  gifts  of  baptism  are  conditional  upon  the  ful- 
filment of  those  engagements  into  which  sponsors 
enter,  inasmuch  as  the  child's  regeneration  is  not 
less  confidently  affirmed,  in  cases  where  there  are 
no  sponsors. 

The  re-insertion  of  the  Prayer  of  Consecration 
is  still  more  important.  Though  Bucer  had  pro- 
fessed his  accordance  with  the  Lutherans,  of  whom 
it  was  a  main  doctrine,  as  Martyr  complained, 
that  "they  tied  the  grace  of  God  to  Baptism," 
(vid.  p.  228,)  yet  one  point  to  which  he  mainly 
objected  in  our  Baptismal  Office,  was  the  Prayer 
for  consecrating  the  water.81    His  fear  was,  lest  it 

81  "  Constat  enim  ad  quam  magicam  rerum  immutationem 
persuadendam  hominibus,  istse  benedictiones  sint  detortse."  And 
again,  "  Quasi  Dens  debeat  his  rebus  immanentem  aliquam  im- 
mittere  virtutem."  But  he  admits  that  "  Sacraincnta  nostra  sunt 
in  usu ;  actiones  sunt,  quibus  Dominus  peccatorum  remissionem 
suique  communionem  suis  impertit  hominibus"  &c. — Scripta 
Auglicana,  p.  481. 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  237 

should  engender  the  idea,  that  into  the  elements sa 
themselves  there  was  infused  some  magical  effi- 
cacy. Whereas,  its  purpose  was  not  of  course  to 
imply,  that  material  elements  could  ever  become 
efficacious  of  themselves  to  the  production  of  spi- 
ritual results,  but  that  it  was  God's  will  to  annex 
a  certain  spiritual  power  to  a  peculiar  manner  of 
using  certain  external  elements.  This  is  the  idea 
conveyed  by  the  Homily,  when,  as  a  necessary 
condition  of  a  sacrament,  it  lays  down  that  it  must 
have  a  promise  "  annexed  and  tied  to  the  visible 
sign."=3  The  same  thing  is  expressed  by  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer,  when  he  says  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  "  sacramentally  joined  to  the  water  in  Bap- 
tism."84 The  object  is  to  the  error,85  that  to  sup- 
pose Sacraments  the  channel  of  grace  is  to  sub- 
ordinate God's  Spirit  to  man's  will.    For  by  thus 

82  Mr.  Gorham  maintains  that  there  is  so  little  danger  of  this 
mistake,  that  "  though  the  more  ignorant  Papist  might  attrihute 
a  regenerative  work  to  the  very  element  of  water,  consecrated  to 
a  Sacamental  use,  yet  the  intelligent  Romanist  would  doubtless 
allow,  that  it  was  to  God  giving  His  blessing  to  this  opus  opc- 
ratum,  that  its  never-failing  efficacy  must  be  ascribed." — Ex- 
amination, Introd.  p.  25.  Mr.  Goode  also  maintains  that  the 
doctrine  taught  by  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of  England, 
that  Baptism  is  efficacious  whenever  it  is  duly  administered,  is 
equivalent  to  the  statement  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  Sa- 
craments owe  their  efficacy  to  the  opus  operatum,  as  contra- 
distinguished from  the  opus  operant  is.  He  says,  "  To  suppose 
that  the  spiritual  effect  always  accompanies  the  outward  action, 
is  in  fact  much  the  same  as  to  suppose  that  the  spiritual  effect  is 
always  produced  by  the  outward  action,  because  even  in  the 
latter  case  it  is  only  supposed  to  take  place  through  Divine  in- 
fluence;" p.  231. 

83  Of  Common  Prayer  and  Sacraments,  p.  330. 

84 Defence,  ii.  9 ;  Jenkyns's  Cranmer,  vol.  ii.  p.  338. 
85  This  error  appears  in  the  fifty-eighth  answer  of  Mr.  Gorham, 
quoted  Supra,  p.  43. 


238 


associating  the  ordinance  with  those  specific  me- 
dia, which  are  Divinely  appointed,  the  mind  is 
carried  back  to  the  virtue  inherent  in  the  man 
Christ  Jesus,  which  extends  through  His  consti- 
tuted ordinances  to  all  His  members,  instead  of 
resting  upon  the  excellence  of  the  doers,  by  whom 
the  earthly  act  is  either  administered  or  partici- 
pated. The  prayer  of  Consecration,  therefore, 
is  of  the  utmost  importance,  not  indeed,  as  in 
the  Eucharist,  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance, 
which  depends  only  on  the  concurrence  of  certain 
words  and  a  certain  element;  but  inasmuch  as  it 
wholly  shuts  out  the  idea  that  Baptism  is  only  a 
significant  seal  and  sign  of  that  which  God  at 
some  other  period,  either  before  or  after,  may  be 
hoped  to  effect.  Whereas  the  Church's  doctrine 
has  ever  been  that  u  at  the  time  when  God  giveth 
His  heavenly  grace,  He  applieth  by  the  hands  of 
His  ministers  that  which  betokeneththe  same  ;  not 
only  betokeneth,  but,  being  also  accompanied  for 
ever  wTith  such  power  as  doth  truly  work,  is  in 
that  respect  termed  God's  instrument,  a  true  effi- 
cient cause  of  grace  ;  a  cause  not  in  itself,  but 
only  by  connection  of  that,  which  is  in  itself  a 
cause,  namely,  God's  own  strength  and  power. 
Sacraments,  that  is  to  say,  the  outward  signs  in 
Sacraments,  work  nothing  till  they  be  blessed  and 
sanctified  of  God.  But  what  is  God's  heavenly 
benediction  and  sanctification,  saving  only  the 
association  of  His  Spirit.  Shall  we  say  that  Sacra- 
ments are  like  magical  signs,  if  thus  they  have 
their  effect?  Is  it  magic  for  God  to  manifest  by 
things  sensible  what  He  doth,  and  to  do  by  His 
own  most  glorious  Spirit  really  what  He  mani- 


NOT    DRAWN    UP    BY    CALVINISTS.  239 

festeth  in  His  Sacraments  ?  The  delivery  and  ad- 
ministration whereof  remaineth  in  the  hands  of 
mortal  men,  by  whom  as  by  personal  instruments, 
God  doth  apply  signs,  and  with  signs  inseparably 
join  His  Spirit,  and  through  the  power  of  His 
Spirit  work  grace."36 

Whatever,  then,  may  have  been  Bucer's  notion, 
though  he  may  not  have  designed  to  teach  any 
thing  contrary  to  Hooker's  statement,  but  only  to 
guard  against  an  abuse,  which  at  the  time  was 
prevalent,  the  act  of  Convocation,  in  restoring 
that  to  which  he  had  successfully  objected,  is  a 
distinct  proof  that,  as  members  of  the  English 
Church,  we  are  not  bound  to  defer  to  his  opinion. 
For  here  is  a  most  important  item  in  our  service, 
which  was  not  only  inserted  without  his  concur- 
rence, but  restored  in  spite  of  his  opposition.  And 
let  it  not  be  said,  that  those  who  made  this  alter- 
ation were  exceeding  their  powers,  and  that 
they  were  bound  to  the  principles  of  that  earlier 
settlement,  which  had  been  made  under  Eliza- 
beth. For  from  this  obligation  they  were  free, 
while  all  subsequent  individuals  are  not  only 
bound  to  the  Prayer-Book  in  general,  but  like- 
wise to  the  "  additions  and  alterations"  which 
they  inserted.  For,  not  to  notice  their  right  in  con- 
science to  represent  the  Church,  they  were  freed 
from  legal  restraints  by  a   special  Commission.37 

s6Eccles,  Polity,  vi.  6,  11. 

87  "•  May  31,  1661.  It  was  ordered  by  His  Majesty  in  Council, 
that  Mr.  Attorney-General  should  forthwith  prepare  a  Commis- 
sion, to  authorize  the  Convocation  to  consult  of  matters  relating 
to  the  settlement  of  the  Church,  and  not  to  insert  therein  the 
clause  or  proviso  in  the  words  following,  nor  any  other  clause 
or  proviso   to  the    like  effect,  Provided  always,  that  the    said 


240  the  church's  service,  etc. 

So  that  the  statements  then  adopted  have  the  same 
binding  efficacy  with  any  which  preceded  them. 
And  while  their  verbal  force  cannot  be  evaded, 
the  intentions  of  those  who  compiled  them  cannot 
be  disputed. 

And  here,  then,  we  may  conclude  this  chapter 
with  the  assertion,  that  those  who  compiled  the 
Service  Books  of  the  Church  of  England  were  not 
Calvinists.  For  the  three  periods  of  especial  inter- 
est have  been  severally  considered  :  and  while  re- 
specting the  Divines  of  1662  no  such  pretence  has 
been  alleged,  respecting  Bishop  Overall  and  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer  none  such  can  be  substantiated. 

Canons,  Orders,  Ordinances,  Constitutions,  Matters  and  Things, 
or  any  of  them  so  to  be  considered,  consulted  and  agreed  upon 
as  aforesaid,  be  not  contrary  or  repugnant  to  the  Liturgy  estab- 
lished, or  the  Rubric  in  it,  or  the  nine-and-thirty  Articles,  or 
any  doctrine,  order,  or  ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England 
already  established." — Rennet's  Register,  p.  456. 


THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES,    ETC.  241 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  ENGLISH  DIVINES  ALWAYS    MAINTAINED  THEIR 
BELIEF  IN  THE  EFFICACY  OF  BAPTISMAL  GRACE. 

The  subject  which  remains  for  consideration  is 
the  second  of  Mr.  Goode's  three  assertions — name- 
ly, that  even  though  the  compilers  of  our  Public 
Formularies  cannot  be  shown  to  have  been  Calvin- 
ists,  yet  that  the  prevalence  which  the  Calvinistic 
Doctrine  of  Absolute  Decrees  at  one  time  attained 
in  the  English  Church,  is  a  sufficient. proof  that  her 
Baptismal  Offices  are  not  to  be  taken  in  that  sense 
which  uthe  expressions  evidently  favour."  In 
support  of  this  statement,  he  adduces  a  variety  of 
extracts,  which  occupy  the  larger  part  of  his  vol- 
ume. "  No  man,  holding  the  system  of  doctrine 
called  Calvinistic,"  he  says,  "  can  consistently  hold 
that  the  universal  effect  of  Baptism  in  Infants  is  to 
produce  spiritual  regeneration.  And  therefore  the 
proofs  already  given  of  the  Calvinistic  views  of  our 
Archbishops,  Bishops,  and  University  Professors, 
are  decisive,  though  indirect  evidences  of  their 
general  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  Baptism." 
"  While  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  testimonies  from 
many  of  these  divines  on  the  particular  subject  of 
the  effects  of  Baptism,  from  the  circumstance  of  its 
not  having  been  any  where  treated  of  by  them,  yet 
21 


242  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

the  system  of  doctrine  they  held  is  a  sufficient  proof 
of  the  general  character  of  their  views." 

Mr.  Goode's  extracts  then  may  be  divided  into 
two  classes  :  those  which  directly  militate  against 
the    universal   efficacy   of  Baptism:    those  which 
only  imply  such  a  Calvinistic  bias,  as  he  conceives 
to  be  incompatible  with  its  belief.     That  passages 
of  the  former  kind  may  be  found  in  some  English 
writers  is   generally  acknowledged  ;  but  it  would 
be  easy  to  show  that  this  part  of  the  argument  is 
carried  to  an  extent  which  is  wholly  indefensible. 
Let  us  take,  as  an  instance,  the  cases  of  Jewell  and 
Davenant.      In  Jewell's  works  occur  various  di 
rect  statements  of  the    general  efficacy  of  infant 
Baptism.     How  does  Mr.  Goode  meet  them?     He 
refers  to  Jewell's  assertions  of   a  truth  which  is 
universally  acknowledged — the  necessity,  namely, 
of  faith  in  the  adult  receiver — and  assumes,  there- 
fore, that  Jewell  must  have  had  some  secret  condi- 
tion in  his  mind,  by  which  his  general  statements 
of  the  efficacy  of  infant  Baptism  must  be  limited. 
What  these  conditions  are,  he  leaves  to  be   con- 
jectured by  the  reader :  "  whether  we  suppose  that 
the  seed  of  faith  is  implanted  in  the  infant  previous 
to  Baptism,  or  whether  we  hold  that  the  provision 
of  future  faith  and  repentance  avails  in  the  case  of 
an  infant,  or  whatever  other  theory  may  he  adopted." 
It  is  sufficient  to  reply,  that  Jewell  himself  makes 
no  mention  of  such  theories.     What  evidence    is 
there  that  he  held  the  strange  notion  that  infants 
possess  a  developed  reason ;  or  that  he  supposed 
with  the  Pelagians,  that  man's  desert  determines 
God's  election  to  privileges  ?     And  what  general 
assertion  is  there  which  may  not  be  rendered  nuga 


ALWAYS    MAINTAINED    BAPTISMAL    GRACE.  243 

tory,  if  we  are  at  liberty  to   explain  it,  by  "  what- 
ever other  theory  may  be  adopted  ?" 

That  Bishop  Davenant1  has  been  misunderstood 
by  Mr.  Goode  in  one  very  material  particular,  has 
already  been  noticed ;  for  Davenant  has  been 
shown  not  to  have  restricted  Baptism,  as  Mr. 
Goode  supposed,  to  the  children  of  Christians.3 
Again,  in  his  statement  of  Davenant's  views,  we 
meet  with  the  same  confusion  between  actual  and 
habitual  faith,  which  has  been  already  noticed  in 
connexion  with  the  Council  of  Vienne.  Davenant 
denies  that  infants  can  possess  actual  faith :  in 
their  case  he  observes,  "  it  is  enough  to  say  that 
they  have  a  faith  which  does  not  show  itself  in  act, 
but  is  included  in  the  habitual  principle  of  grace. 
For  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  able,  and  is  wont 
to  work  in  them  this  habitual  principle  of  grace,  no 
reasonable  man  will  deny."  And  he  goes  on  to 
observe,  that  this  opinion  is  not  invalidated,  be- 
cause actual  faith  is  not  at  once  exhibited  by  them ; 
because  their  lack  of  reason  is  a  bar,  which  delays 
the  effect  of  the  gift  bestowed  upon  them.  It  is 
plain,  then,  that  Davenant  supposed  that  some  gifc 
of  grace  was  always  bestowed  upon  infants  in  Bap- 
tism ;  but  that  as  regarded  faith,  it  was  only  the 
seed  of  its  habitual  influence,  and  not  the  intelli- 
gent act,  of  which  that  age  was  capable.  And  that 
such  was  his  opinion  might  be  substantiated  from 
other  parts  of  his  writings.3     "  I  remember,"  says 

1  Margaret,  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge,  a.  p.  1609. 
Bishop  of  Salisbury,  a.  t).  1621.     "  2  vide  p.  93. 

3  "  Haec  est  ilia  Adoptio  ad  regnum  coeleste  quam  omnibus 
parvulis  baptizatis  competere  libenter  agnoscimus." — EpisUla 
Davenantii,  Vindicise  Gratix,?.  17. 


244  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES. 

Hammond,  "  the  learned  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  Dr. 
Davenant,  in  his  Lent  Sermon  (I  think  the  last  he 
preached  before  the  king,)  declared  his  opinion  to 
be  as  for  universal  redemption,  so  for  universal 
grace  within  the  Church."4  Davenant  had  main- 
tained the  same  opinion  previously  at  the  Council 
of  Dort.5  Now  these  views  of  Davenant's  are 
wholly  misconceived  by  Mr.  Goode.  He  supposes 
Davenant  to  mean  that  some  infants  possess  faith, 
"  qualifying  them  to  derive  an  immediate  salutary 
effect"  from  Baptism,  by  virtue  of  that  grace  which 
"  may  be  given  to  infants  by  the  Holy  Spirit  pre- 
vious to  Baptism."  Thus  would  the  validity  of 
Baptism  be  thrown  upon  the  act  of  the  child  ;  and 
some  infants  must  be  supposed  to  possess  actual 
faith,  of  which  Davenant  rightly  declares  all  to  be 
incapable,  lest  that  seed  of  grace,  which  he  states 
to  be  bestowed  upon  all,  should  be  thought  to  be 
really  given  to  them.  And  hence  issues  the  sin- 
gular notion,  "  that  where  grace  has  been  previ- 
ously conferred,  there,  and  there  only,  the  full  Bap- 
tismal blessing  is  immediately  enjoyed  ;"  as  though 
baptismal  grace  were  withstood  by  some  incapacity 
on  the  part  of  the  infant  nature,  by  which  anti- 
baptismal  grace  was  not  obstructed. 

Such  objections  might  be  urged  against  many  of 
Mr.  Goode's  quotations.  But  to  produce  them 
would  be  a  needless  trial  of  the  reader's  patience. 
For  what  would  such  quotations  establish,  so  long 
as  the  language  of  our  Formularies  is  clear  and 
unequivocal,    but   that   men   have    given    to    Our 

4  Hammond's  Letter  to  Sanderson,  Works,  i.  673. 
6  Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans,  part  ii.  cap.  ii. 


ALWAYS    MAINTAINED    BAPTISMAL  GRACE.  245 

Church's  words  a  different  sense  from  that  which, 
by  Mr.  Goode's  confession,  "  the  expressions  evi- 
dently favour  ?"  But  because  the  Church's  words 
were  formerly  evaded,  must  they  be  evaded  for 
ever?  It  is  needless,  therefore,  to  enter  upon  the 
consideration  of  those  passages,  in  which,  as  Mr. 
Goode  alleges,  the  general  efficacy  of  Sacraments  is 
dispu-ted.  The  other  class  of  extracts,  which  show 
merely  the  Calvinistic  tendency  of  their  authors, 
admit  of  a  different  answer.  For  these  quotations 
establish  nothing,  unless  it  can  be  proved  also,  that 
the  Calvinism  of  Elizabeth's  reign  was  the  fixed 
point,  round  which  all  other  notions  were  to  arrange 
themselves.  Whereas,  it  will  be  found  on  exami- 
nation, that  the  Church's  declarations  were  the  set- 
tled basis,  and  that  the  theories  of  Calvin  were  only 
admitted,  so  far  as  they  were  not  understood  to 
militate  with  the  established  principles.  This  shall 
be  shown  in  two  ways-*-flrst,  by  adducing  the  case 
of  those  nominal  Calvinists,  whose  Calvinism  had 
never  been  tested  by  themselves,  and  fell  to  pieces, 
so  soon  as  it  was  examined  ;  secondly,  by  reference 
to  an  instance,  in  which  avowed  and  deliberate 
Calvinism  did  not  preclude  the  most  unequivocal 
assertion  of  Baptismal  Regeneration. 

Since  all  which  the  present  argument  requires, 
is  to  show  that  disbelief  in  Sacramental  grace 
was  not,  in  fact,  involved  either  by  the  nominal, 
nor  even  by  the  deliberate  adoption  of  Calvin's 
theory,  it  will  be  sufficient  if  a  few  instances  are 
adduced  to  the  contrary.  But  something  must 
first  be  said  respecting  the  general  course  of  events 
at  that  period.  They  illustrate  the  remarkable  law, 
which  regulates  man's  whole  history,  that  no  indi- 
21* 


246  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

vidual  mind  is  possessed  of  such  power  and  com- 
prehension, as  to  exercise  a  permanent  control  over 
the  progress  of  thought.  u  The  bed  is  shorter  than 
that  a  man  can  stretch  himself  on  it ;  and  the 
covering  narrower  than  that  he  can  wrap  himself 
in  it."  If  the  general  laws  of  morals,  or  the 
Church's  faith,  as  it  was  proclaimed  at  Nice,  are 
too  wide  and  fixed  to  be  outgrown,  it  is  because 
the  one  are  dictated  by  that  Divine  wisdom,  of 
which  natural  conscience  is  the  expositor ;  and  the 
other  was  the  revealed  teaching  of  that  guiding 
Spirit,  which  has  been  pleased  to  take  up  its 
dwelling  in  the  Mystical  Body  of  Christ.  It  has 
been  otherwise  with  all  human  systems  ;  and  in  no 
case  more  remarkably  than  in  the  overthrow  of  that 
intellectual  empire,  which  the  eloquence  and  ability 
of  Calvin  had  established  among  the  Reformed  of 
the  Continent.  Scarcely  had  the  sixteenth  century 
passed  away,  before  those  symptoms  of  dissatisfac- 
tion displayed  themselves,  which  have  led  to  the 
complete  renunciation  of  his  authority  in  the  com- 
munities where  it  once  was  absolute.  This  process 
was,  no  doubt,  hastened  by  the  revolting  character 
of  that  tenet  of  Absolute  Reprobation,  which  is  in- 
separable from  his  system.  At  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
the  ruling  party  complained  because  the  Remon- 
strants began  by  directing  their  attacks  against  this 
vulnerable  point  of  the  Calvinistic  theory.  That 
which  was  "misliked,"  was  "their  urging  so 
much  to  handle  the  point  of  reprobation,  and  that 
in  the  first  place."6  It  was  said,  their  "  so  hotly 
urging  the  question  of  reprobation,  was  only  to  ex- 

6  Hale's  Letters,  p.  94. 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.    247 

agitate  the  contra-remonstrants'  doctrine."  Mr. 
Goode  has  avoided  all  express  statements  on  this 
point,  although  it  is  manifest  that  his  sole  ground 
for  supposing  that  the  Divines  who  followed  the 
Reformation,  could  not  believe  in  the  universality 
of  baptismal  grace,  is  that  such  an  opinion  would 
break  that  logical  chain  of  doctrine,  in  which  Re- 
probation is  an  indispensable  link.  This  deficiency 
in  the  completeness  of  Mr.  Goode\s  statements,  may 
be  supplied  out  of  a  writer  with  whom  in  his  gene- 
ral argument  he  strikingly  accords,  and  by  whom 
he  has  been  anticipated  in  a  large  number  of  his 
quotations — but  who  speaks  on  this  subject  with 
less  caution.  "  Our  learned  Divinity  Professors  in 
King  Edward's  days,"  says  Prynne,  "  are  full  and 
copious  on  this  point ;  witness  Peter  Martyr,  in  his 
Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Rom.  &c.  ;  witness  Dr. 
Martin  Bucer  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans,  &c, 
and  on  Ephesians,  &c. :  whence  eminent  Dr.  Whit- 
akers,  in  his  Cygneo  Cantio,  informs  us  that  Peter 
Martyr  and  Martin  Bucer,  of  honourable  memory, 
did  profess  this  doctrine  of  absolute  andirrespective 
Reprobation,  in  both  our  famous  Universities ;  and 
that  our  Church  (which  was  most  abundantly  water- 
ed with  the  fountains  of  these  two  eminent  Divines, 
in  the  days  of  King  Edward  VI.)  did  always  hold 
it  as  the  undoubted  truth,  ever  since  the  restitution 
of  the  Gospel  to  her."7 

The  statements  put  forward  by  Prynne,  and  now 
insisted  upon  by  Mr.  Goode,  have  their  real  basis, 
not  in  the  events  which  happened  in  King  Edward's 
reign,  during  which  the  Calvinistic  points  had  not 

7  Prynne's  "  Anti-Arminianism,"  p.  103. 


248  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

become  a  main  subject  of  controversy,  but  in  the 
ascendency  which  Calvinism  gained  by  the  return 
of  the  Marian  exiles.  For  a  time  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes became  the  text  book  for  our  divinity  stu- 
dents ;  and  it  was  treason  to  dispute  his  authority 
in  the  pulpits  of  our  Universities.  But  here,  as  on 
the  Continent,  the  culminating  point  of  the  system 
was  its  triumph  at  the  Synod  of  Dort,  (a.  d.  1618,) 
which,  by  revealing  its  harsher  features,  proved 
fatal  to  its  authority.  On  the  Continent  the  Re- 
monstrants sunk  gradually  into  Socinianism,  while, 
as  Mr.  Hallam  observes,  "  the  defections"  "  to  the 
faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  "  from  whatever 
cause,  are  numerous  in  the  seventeenth  century." 
He  adds  that  two,  more  eminent  than  any  who 
actually  joined  it,  "  must  be  owned  to  have  given 
signs  of  wavering,  Casaubon  and  Grotius."^ 

And  now  it  appeared  how  great  was  the  advan- 
tage enjoyed  by  the  Church  of  England,  in  that  she 
had  retained  the  ancient  Sacramental  system,  and 
had  not  broken  that  chain  of  continuity,  which 
bound  her  to  the  Primitive  Church.  The  system 
of  Calvinism  had  been  merely  an  extraneous  influ- 
ence, by  which  she  had  been  infected,  and  had  not 
formed  the  basis  of  her  belief;  it  was  capable  ot 
being  thrown  off  therefore  like  other  human  inven- 
tions, while  the  great  principles  of  the  Gospel  re- 
mained untouched.  That  which  arrested  Casau- 
bon's  progress  was  his  removal  to  this  country, 
from  which  he  writes  to  Heinsius  (a.  d.  1611,) 
while  Laud  was  yet  almost  unknown  out  of  the 
University  ;  "I  desire,  with  Melancthon  and  the 
Church  of  England,  that  the  truths  of  the   faith 

8  «  Literature  of  Europe,  from  1600  to  1650,"  c.  ii.  12. 


ALWAYS    MAINTAINED    BAPTISMAL  GRACE.     249 

should  be  brought  to  us  through  the  channel  of 
Antiquity,  from  the  fountain  of  Scripture."  "  There 
are  divines  in  England,  men  of  admirable  learning 
and  piety,  such  as  the  Bishop  of  Ely  (Andrews,) 
the  Bishop  of  Winchester  (Bilson,)  the  Dean  of  St. 
Paul's  (Overall,)  and  others:  these,  just  in  propor- 
tion as  they  are  pious  and  skilled  in  true  doctrine, 
are  ardent  lovers  of  Antiquity.  I  wish  you  knew 
them."9 

But  the  course  of  events  in  this  country  cannot 
be  better  understood  than  by  the  following  account, 
which  was  given  by  the  celebrated  Bishop  Sander- 
son, of  the  progress  of  his  own  mind.  It  clearly 
demonstrates  how  little  hold  Calvinism  had  taken 
of  many  who  nominally  acquiesced  in  it  ;  and  it 
therefore  disproves  Mr.  Goode's  assertion,  that  Cal- 
vinistic  phraseology  was  incompatible  with  a  full 
admission  of  the  Church's  statements  respecting 
baptismal  grace.  The  statement  occurs  in  a  letter 
addressed  by  Sanderson  to  Hammond,  a.  d.  1659  ; 
and  which  was  published  by  the  latter. 

"  I  shall  set  out,"  says  Hammond,  "  with  a  bare  transcript  of 
that,  which  will  need  no  comment  of  mine,  to  render  it  useful 
to  the  reader,  in  discovering  to  him  the  true  and  sole  original  of 
thriving  (for  some  time)  of  those  doctrines  among  us,  and  how 
so  many  of  our  Church  came  to  be  seasoned  with  them,  and  in 
giving  him  a  but  necessary  caution  for  the  laying  the  ground  of 
the  Study  of  Divinity  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  Church, 
rather  than  in  our  modern  systems  and  institutions." 

The  following  is  Sanderson's  own  statement. 

"  When  I  began  to  set  myself  to  the  study  of  Divinity  as  my 
proper  business  (which  was  after  I  had  the  degree  of  Master  of 
Arts,  being  then  newly  twenty-one  years  of  age,)  [a.  d.  1608,] 

9  Pra3stantium  Epistolicse  Ecclesiastse,  Ep.  143. 


250  THE  ENGLISH  DIVINES 

the  first  thing  I  thought  fit  for  me  to  do,  was  to  consider  well 
of  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  I  had  formerly- 
read  over  twice  or  thrice,  and  whereunto  I  had  subscribed. 
And  because  I  had  then  met  with  some  Puritanical  pamphlets, 
written  against  the  Liturgy  and  Ceremonies,  although  most  of 
the  arguments  therein  were  such  as  needed  no  great  skill  to 
give  satisfactory  answers  unto,  yet  for  my  fuller  satisfaction, 
(the  questions  being  de  rebus  agendis,  and  so  the  more  suitable 
to  my  proper  inclination)  I  read  over  with  great  diligence,  and 
no  less  delight,  that  excellent  piece  of  learned  Hooker's  Eccle- 
siastical Polity.  And  I  have  great  cause  to-bless  God  for  it, 
that  so  I  did,  not  only  for  that  it  much  both  cleared  and  settled 
my  judgment  for  ever  after  in  very  many  weighty  points  (as  of 
scandal,  Christian  liberty,  obligation  of  laws,  obedience,  &c.,) 
but  that  it  also  proved  (by  his  good  providence)  a  good  pre- 
parative to  me  (that  I  say  not  antidote)  for  the  reading  of 
Calvin's  Institutions  with  more  caution  than  perhaps  (otherwise) 
I  should  have  done.  For  that  book  was  commended  to  me,  as 
it  was  generally  to  all  young  scholars  in  those  times,  as  the  best 
and  perfectest  system  of  Divinity,  and  fittest  to  be  laid  as  a 
groundwork  iri  the  study  of  that  profession.  And,  indeed,  being 
so  prepared  as  is  said,  my  expectation  was  not  at  all  deceived, 
in  the  reading  of  those  institutions.  I  found,  so  far  as  I  was 
then  able  to  judge,  the  method  exact,  the  expression  clear,  the 
style  grave,  equal,  and  unaffected;  his  doctrine  for  the  most  part 
conform  to  St.  Augustin's,  in  a  word,  the  whole  work  very 
elaborate,  and  useful  to  the  Churches  of  God  in  a  good  mea- 
sure ;  and  might  have  been  (I  verily  believe)  much  more  useful, 
if  the  honour  of  his  name  had  not  given  so  much  reputation  to 
his  very  errors,  I  must  acknowledge  myself  to  have  reaped 
great  benefit  by  the  reading  thereof.  But  as  for  the  questions 
of  Election,  Reprobation,  Effectual  Grace,  Perseverance,  &c, 
I  took  as  little  notice  of  the  two  first,  as  of  any  other  thing 
contained  in  the  book;  both  because  I  was  always  afraid  to  pry 
much  into  those  secrets,  and  because  I  could  not  certainly 
inform  myself  from  his  own  writings,  whether  he  were  a  Supra- 
lapsarian  (as  most  speak  him,  and  he  seemeth  often  to  incline 
much  that  wray,)  or  a  Sublapsarian,  as  sundry  passages  in  the 
book  seem  to  import.  But  giving  myself  mostly  still  to  the 
study  of  moral  Divinity  (and  taking  other  things  upon  trust, 
as  they  were  in  a  manner  generally  taught,  both  in  the  Schools 
and  Pulpits  in  both  Universities,)  I  did  for  many  years  together 
acquiesce,  without  troubling  myself  any  farther  about  them,  in 
the   more  commonly  received  opinions  concerning  both   these 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.    251 

two,  and  the  other  points  depending  thereupon.  Yet  in  the 
Sublapsarian  way  ever,  which  seemed  to  me  of  the  two,  the 
more  moderate,  rational,  and  agreeable  to  the  goodness  and 
justice  of  God :  for  the  rigid  Supralapsarian  doctrine  could 
never  find  any  entertainment  in  my  thoughts  from  first  to  last. 
But  mdcxxv.  a  Parliament  being  called,  wherein  I  was  chosen 
one  of  the  clerks  of  the  Convocation  for  the  Diocese  of  Lincoln, 
during  the  continuance  of  that  Parliament  (which  was  about 
four  months  as  I  remember,)  there  was  some  expectation  that 
those  Arminian  points  (the  only  questions  almost  in  agita- 
tion at  that  time,")  should  have  been  debated  by  the  clergy  in 
that  Convocation,  which  occasioned  me  (as  it  did  sundry  others) 
being  then  at  some  leisure,  to  endeavour  by  study  and  conference 
to  inform  myself,  as  thoroughly  and  exactly,  in  the  state  of  those 
controversies,  as  I  could  have  opportunity,  and  as  my  wit  would 
serve  me  for  it.  In  order  whereunto  I  made  it  my  first  business 
to  take  a  survey  of  the  several  different  opinions  concerning  the 
ordering  of  God's  Decrees,  as  to  the  salvation  and  damnation  of 
men  ;  which  opinions,  the  better  to  represent  their  differences  to 
the  eye,  I  reduced  into  schemes  or  tables.  .  .  .  Having  all  these 
schemes  before  my  eyes  at  once,  so  as  I  might  with  ease  compare 
them  with  one  another,  and  having  considered  of  the  conve- 
niences and  inconveniences  of  each,  as  well  as  I  could,  I  soon 
discerned  a  necessity  of  quitting  the  Sublapsarian  way,  of  which 
I  had  a  better  liking  before,  as  well  as  the  Supralapsarian,  which  I 
could  never  fancy."10 

Now,  it  cannot  be  inferred  that  persons,  who 
merely  acquiesced  in  this  manner  in  a  prevalent 
theory,  might  not  be  firmly  attached  to  those  truths, 
which  they  learnt  from  the  Formularies  of  the 
Church.  Still  more  must  this  have  been  the  case, 
when  they  found  that  the  statements  which  occur 
in  our  baptismal  offices,  were  universally  adopted 
in  Primitive  times,  and  had  been  finally  vindicated 
against  the  Semi-Pelagians  by  the  Council  of 
Orange.     The  system,  therefore,  which  they  heard 

10  Hammond's  "  Pacific  Discourse  of  God's  Grace  and  De- 
crees," Works,  i.  669. 


252  THE  ENGLISH  DIVINES 

in  the  schools,  was  gradually  modified  by  that 
which  they  learnt  from  Scripture  and  Antiquity. 
If  Mr.  Goode  had  convinced  them,  that  the  Abso- 
lute Decrees  of  Calvin  were  incompatible  with  the 
free  grace  of  St.  Augustin,  he  would  only  have 
hastened  their  migration  from  the  school  of  Geneva 
to  that  of  Hippo.  That  in  this  way  our  English 
Divinity  advanced  to  a  riper  judgment,  as  it  gra- 
dually shook  off  those  fetters,  which  the  genius  of 
Calvin  had  imposed  upon  it,  appears  from  the  very 
extracts  of  Mr.  Goode.  For  he  finds  the  system  of 
Calvinism  not  only  in  Abbot  and  Downame,  but  in 
Andrews  and  Hooker.  And  this  is  in  fact  to  con- 
fute himself.  For  that  which  is  complained  of  in 
the  persons  whom  Mr.  Goode  defends,  is  not  that 
they  adopt  the  theories  of  Calvin,  but  that  they 
assert  themselves  to  be  precluded  from  receiving 
the  Church's  judgment  respecting  God's  promises. 
If  they  are  deemed  unsound  Churchmen,  it  is  not 
for  accepting  the  doctrine  of  Absolute  Decrees,  but 
for  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  grace.  Now, 
what  countenance  can  Hooker  afford  to  such  a 
course  ?  For  how  could  the  universality  of  Sacra- 
mental grace  be  more  plainly  stated  than  in  Book 
V.  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Polity.  Here  the  doctrine 
of  Mediation  is  fully  set  forth  ;  and  the  Humanity 
of  the  Son  of  God  is  shown  to  be  the  very  medium 
of  that  grace,  whereby  He  renews  His  fallen 
brethren.  And  this  is  the  central  point  of  the 
whole  controversy.  For  let  this  truth  be  once 
understood,  and  children  will  be  seen  to  be  in  their 
degree  as  competent  recipients  of  the  blessing  as 
their  elders.     For  as  certainly  as  infancy  can  parti- 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.    253 

cipate  in  the  corruption  of  the  old  Adam,  can  it  be 
regenerated  by  the  graces  of  the  New. 

But  there  remains  yet  clearer  proof  behind.  For 
not  only  was  the  popular  language  of  Calvinism 
employed,  where  the  system  was  not  received  in 
its  rigour ;  in  cases,  therefore,  which  furnish  no 
presumption  against  the  admission  of  Sacramental 
grace  ;  but  baptismal  regeneration  could  not  be 
affirmed  in  broader  terms,  nor  language  which  was 
more  directly  opposed  to  Mr.  Goode's  hypothesis 
be  employed  in  stating  it,  than  was  used  by  a 
leading  Calvinistic  Divine  of  the  age  of  James  I. 
The  Council  of  Dort  has  been  already  referred  to, 
as  marking  the  highest  point,  which  was  attained 
by  the  Calvinistic  party.  Among  the  reputed 
heads,  therefore,  of  that  party,  were  the  English 
Divines  who  attended  at  Dort — not,  indeed,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Goode's  statement,  as  "  represen- 
tatives of  our  Church,"  but  as  delegates  deputed 
by  the  King.  One  of  these  was  Dr.  Samuel 
Ward,  Master  of  Sidney  College,  Cambridge, 
who  was  appointed  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity 
three  years  afterwards.  He  is  cited  in  Prynne's 
work  against  Arminianism  as  one  of  the  "three 
famous  reverend  Divines  of  especial  eminency, 
note,  and  credit  in  our  Church."11  He  was  a 
valued  correspondent  of  Usher's,13  who  seems  to 

11  Anti-Arminianism,  p.  260. 

12  "  You  have  done  ine  a  great  pleasure,  in  communicating  unto 
me  my  Lord  of  Salisbury's  (Davenant's)  and  your  own  determi- 
nation, touching  the  efficacy  of  Baptism  in  Infants  :  for  it  is  an 
obscure  point,  and  such  as  I  desire  to  be  taught  in  by  such  as 
you  are,  rather  than  deliver  my  own  opinion  thereof." — Usher's 
Lett,  to  Dr.  Ward;  vid.  Parr's  Life  of  Usher,  No.  159, 
p.  434. 


254  THE  ENGLISH  DIVINES 

have  deferred  to  his  powers  of  reasoning,  as  much 
as  Ward  did  to  the  great  acquirements  of  the 
Archbishop.  He  always  professed  himself  op- 
posed to  the  Arminian  party,13  and  on  this  account, 
apparently,  was  chosen  a  member  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly  of  Divines.  If  there  be  any 
one  then,  on  whose  opposition  to  the  universal 
efficacy  of  Baptism  Mr.  Goode  could  reckon,  it 
would  be  Dr.  Ward.  But  it  will  be  found  not 
only  that  Dr.  Ward  asserted  this  doctrine,  but 
that  he  asserted  it  in  that  very  manner,  by  which 
Mr.  Goode's  hypothesis  is  most  exactly  contra- 
dicted. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Savoy  Divines  em- 
ployed words,  which  were  usual  among  the 
Schoolmen,  that  "  God's  Sacraments  have  their 
effects,  where  the  receiver  doth  not  lponere  obicem^ 
put  any  bar  against  them  (which  children  cannot 
do")  [vid.  p.  110.]  This  was  the  opinion  of 
those  Bishops  who  were  concerned  in  the  com- 
position of  the  Form  for  Adult  Baptism,  and  who 
also  suggested  various  other  alterations,  which 
were  adopted  by  the  Convocation  of  1662.  It  is 
obvious  how  directly  this  statement  conflicts  with 
the  fundamental  principle  of  Mr.  Goode's  volume, 
namely,  that  infants  are  not  all  "fit  subjects"  for 
Baptism  ;  but  require  certain  "  qualifications" 
over  and  above  the  presence  of  original  sin, 
which  renders  grace  so  needful,  and  the  absence 
of  actual  sin,  whereby  they  are  unable  to  oppose 
it.     Against  this  statement,  therefore,  of  the  com- 

13  "  He  speaks  with  thankfulness  of  "  the  repression  of  the 
Arminian  Faction.'' — Usher's  Lett.  No.  108. 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.     255 

pilers  of  one  of  our  Baptismal  Offices,  Mr.  Goode 
takes  up  arms,  and  declares  it,  in  words  borrowed 
from  Abbot,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  to  be  a  Papis- 
tical statement,  and  to  form  the  basis  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  opus  operation.  Those  who  agree 
with  the  Catechism  of  the  Church  of  England,  are 
not  likely  to  think  more  highly  than  did  Bishop 
Overall,14  by  whom  the  conclusion  of  the  Cate- 
chism was  penned,  of  Abbot's  authority.  But  the 
point  to  which  I  call  attention  is,  that  Dr.  Ward 
employed  this  obnoxious  form  of  expression,  both 
in  his  private  writings,  and  when  presiding  as 
Professor  in  the  Divinity  Exercises  at  Cambridge. 
Mr.  Goode  closes  his  list  of  authorities  with  Dr. 
Ward's  predecessor,  Davenant ;  but  (while  speak- 
ing of  Davenant  as  "  one  of  the  representatives  of 
our  Church  at  the  Synod  of  Dort,  .  .  .  whose  Cal- 
vinism will  not  of  course  be  disputed")  he  mentions 
Dr.  Ward  as  "  agreeing  with  Devenant's  view,  and 
perhaps  carrying  it  a  little  further."  It  would  not 
be  inferred  from  this  statement,  that  Dr.  Ward 
was  accustomed  to  employ  that  particular  mode 
of  expressing  this  doctrine,  against  which  Mr. 
Goode  so  peculiarly  protests.  Such,  however, 
was  the  case.     In  his  work  on  Justification,  after 

14  "  Audio  tractatum  quendam  Episcopi  nunc  Sarisburiensis, 
fratris  Archiepiscopi  Cantuariensis,  modo  sub  prado  esse,  contra 
Arminianos  et  diatribam  Thompsoni ;  nee  multum  miror,  cum 
Perkinsium  cum  suo  reformat*)  Catholico  prius  defenderit. 
Utinam  res  theologicas  et  quaestiones  de  fide  Christiana,  non 
ex  studiis  partium,  et  priviatis  opiniojiibus  aut  affectibus,  sed  ex 
certo  verbo  Dei  et  consensu  veteris  Ecclesiae  tractaremus  et 
definiremus,  majorem  spem  concordiaj  simul  et  veritatis  Evan- 
gel ica;  teneremus." — Overall  to  Grotius,  Epistolcs  Preestan- 
tium  Yirorum,  No,  295. 


256  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

defining  Sacraments  to  be  signs  of  grace,  but 
stating  that  they  are  unprofitable,  unless  there 
be  fitness  on  the  part  of  the  receiver,  he  adds; 
"  from  this  rule  infants  are  to  be  excepted,  in 
whose  Baptism  there  needs  no  previous  disposition 
on  the  part  of  the  receiver.  For  the  circum- 
stance of  their  interposing  no  bar  by  any  voluntary 
act,  is  their  sufficient  qualification  for  obtaining 
the  effect  of  Baptism."15  But  the  subject  is 
treated  of  at  length  in  two  "  Determinations" 
pronounced  in  the  Divinity  Schools  at  Cam- 
bridge. And  these  are  of  the  more  interest  in  the 
present  inquiry,  because,  in  transmitting  them  to 
Usher  (with  a  letter,  a  part  of  which  is  quoted 
by  Mr.  Goode,)  Dr.  Ward  states,  that  he  had  dis- 
cussed the  question  of  "  the  efficacy  of  Baptism  in 
infants,"  with  Bishop  Davenant,  and  that  they 
agreed  that  the  full  admission  of  this  truth  was 
not  inconsistent  with  that  view  of  the  question  of 
Perseverance,  which  they  both  accepted.  Now 
how  is  Mr.  Goode  to  reconcile  these  statements  ? 
On  the  one  hand,  we  are  told  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Schoolmen,  that  Baptismal  grace  profits  in- 
fants, because  they  are  incapable  of  opposing  a 
bar  to  its  efficacy,  is  absolutely  to  be  rejected  as 
"  Papisticum  illud  pronunciatum  ;"  and  therefore 
it  must  be  as  much  without  the  "limit  laid  down 
by  Our  Church  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacra- 
ments," as  the  opinion  (for  which  Mr.  Goode  ar- 
raigns the  Bishop  of  Exeter  in  no  very  courteous 
terms,)   "  that  on  the  subject  of  Baptism  wc  are 

,3"Utobicem  nullum  ponant  actu  voluntario." — Traclcius 
dc  Justijicalionc  cap.  xxx. 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.     257 

agreed  with  Rome."  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
Bishop  Davenant  is  a  person  "  whose  Calvinism 
will  not  be  disputed  ;"  and  we  find  Dr.  Ward, 
also  a  Calvinist,  and  a  delegate  at  Dort,  "  agree- 
ing with  Bishop  Davenant's  view,  and  perhaps 
carrying  it  a  little  further."  But  the  view  of 
Dr.  Ward  is  the  very  statement  which  is  so  abso- 
lutely incompatible  with  Mr.  Goode's  interpreta- 
tion of  our  Baptismal  Offices.  "  Infants  place  no 
Dar.  On  them,  therefore,  we  say  that  Sacraments 
infallibly  confer  grace."16  How  utterly  ground- 
less, then,  is  Mr.  Goode's  confidence,  even  were 
the  fact  such  as  he  supposes,  that  if  it  should 
appear  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers  "was, 
in  the  most  important  points,  what  is  now  called 
Calvinistic,  there  is,  or  ought  to  be,  an  end  to  the 
controversy  as  to  the  interpretation  they  intended 
to  be  given  to  our  Formularies  as  respects  Bap- 
tism." ' 

If  Mr.  Goode  was  aware  of  the  testimony 
which  is  thus  given  against  him  by  his  own  wit- 
nesses, he  must  have  felt  that  he  was  treading 
upon  precarious  ground.  And  it  seems  unlikely 
that  it  had  escaped  his  notice,  since  he  refers  to 
the  volume17  in  which  Dr.  Ward's  two  Deter- 
minations originally  appeared.     They  were  sub- 

16  "  Non  ponunt  obiccm  parvuli.  Illis  ergo  dicimus  sacra- 
menta  infallibiliter  conferre  gratiam." — Samuelis  Wardi  Deter- 
minat ion es  Theologies:. 

17  "  Vindicia;  Gratis  Sacramentalis  duobus  Tractatulis  com- 
prehensffi — 1.  T)e  Erficacia  Sacramentorum  in  gcnere.  2.  De 
efficacia  Baptismi  quantum  ad  Parvulos.  Quibus  praefigitur 
Epistola  Reverendiss.  Patris  et  Prasulis  dignissirni  Joan. 
Davenantii,  nuper  Episcopi  Sarisbur.  Argumenti  non  dissimilis." 
—Op,  et  Studio,  T.  B.  S.  Th.  B.  London.  1650,  12mo. 

oo* 


258  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

sequently  published  with  Dr.  Ward's  other  works, 
A.  d.  1658,  by  his  pupil  and  namesake,  Seth 
Ward,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Salisbury.  But 
these  two  Determinations  had  been  printed,  a.  d. 
1650,  by  Thomas  Bedford,  whose  exercises  in 
the  Divinity  School,  a.  d.  1629,  had  given  occa- 
sion to  them.  Bedford,  as  it  appears  from  his 
preface,  had  suggested  two  sets  of  questions,  of 
which  Dr.  Ward,  for  reasons  unknown  to  him, 
selected  those  which  had  reference  to  the  validity 
of  Sacraments.  We  learn  from  Ward's  own 
statement  to  Usher,18  that  the  choice  did  not 
really  originate  with  him  ;  he  was  very  loath  the 
question  should  be  brought  upon  the  Commence- 
ment-Stage ;  but  he  was  overborne  by  the  im- 
portunity of  the  Answerer,  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  Vice-Chancellor,  and  "the  major  part  of 
the  Doctors."  There  were  those,  it  seems,  who 
thought  with  Mr.  Goode,  that  this  question  would 
"  impugn  the  doctrine  of  Perseverance  by  an  un- 
deniable argument."  So  thought  Bedford  him- 
self, as  he  stated  to  the  Divinity  Professor.  But 
Ward,  as  he  tells  Usher,  had  "  heretofore  thought 
upon  this  point ;  and  my  Lord  of  Sarum,  and 
myself,  at  Dort,  had  speech  of  it,  when  we  signi- 
fied in  our  judgment,  that  the  case  of  infants  was 
not  appertaining  to  the  question  of  Perseverance." 
He  therefore  told  Bedford  that  the  case  of  infants 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  Final 
Perseverance,  adding  "here  is  a  letter,  which  I 
lately  received  on  this  subject  from  the  learned 
and  reverend  Bishop  of  Salisbury." 

19  Parr's  «  Life  of  Usher,"  Lett.  160,  p.  438. 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.     259 

To  this  circumstance  probably  we  owe  the  pre- 
servation of  Davenant's  letter.  A  copy  of  it  was 
kept  by  Bedford,  which  many  years  afterwards  he 
was  recommended  to  print  by  Archbishop  Usher. 
Dr.  Ward  was  by  this  time  dead.  Usher  took 
this  opportunity  of  making  public  the  two  " De- 
terminations," and  a  "  Vindication,"19  which 
Ward  had  at  the  time  transmitted  to  him.  So 
that  the  work  supplies  us  with  the  judgment  of 
three  leading  men  of  the  Calvinistic  party,  respect- 
ing the  fundamental  principle  of  Mr.  Goode's 
book.  Bishop  Davenant,  one  of  the  delegates  at 
Dort,  "  whose  Calvinism  will  not  be  disputed," 
writes  a  letter  to  Ward,  to  show  that  it  is  not 
true,  as  Mr.  Goode  supposes,  that  "the  Cal- 
vinistic views  of  our  Bishops  are  decisive  evi- 
dences of  their  general  doctrine  on  the  subject 
of  Baptism."  Ward,  another  delegate  at  Dort, 
agrees  with  him :  "  that  the  case  of  infants  was 
not  appertaining  to  the  question  of  Perseverance." 
And  Archbishop  Usher,  one  of  the  most  respected 
authorities  which  Calvinists  are  accustomed  to 
lay  claim  to,  contributes  to  the  publication  of 
their  decision. 

The  reader  will  see  that  on  these  facts  it  would 
not  be  difficult  to  found  a  charge  of  disingenuous 
conduct  against  Mr.  Goode.  Why  not  tell  his 
readers  plainly  the  purpose  of  Davenant's  letter? 
Why  not  state  more  fully  the  sentiments  of  Dr. 

19  It  seems  that  this  Vindication  consisted  of  papers  which 
passed  hetvveen  Ward  and  Gataker.  Upon  the  appearance  of 
Bedford's  work,  Gataker  published  both  Ward's  Thesis  (a.  v. 
1652)  and  Davenant's  Letter  (a.  d.  1651,)  with  his  own 
stnetures. 


260  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

Ward,  instead  of  saying  that  he  "  agreed  with 
Davenant's  view,  perhaps  carrying  it  a  little 
further?"  I  mention  the  matter,  only  lest  I 
should  be  supposed  to  imply  such  an  imputa- 
tion.20 For  I  feel  a  full  persuasion,  that  Mr. 
Goode  has  not  estimated  the  force  of  this  evi- 
dence, in  consequence  of  that  false  position  which 
he  has  assumed.  He  has  set  out  with  the  im- 
pression that  the  Church  of  England  was  founded 
about  three  hundred  years  ago ;  its  fundamental 
principles  being  certain  abstract  dicta  respecting 
God's  dealings  with  mankind,  which  Calvin  and 
other  able  men  had  discovered  by  an  attentive 
study  of  the  text  of  Scripture.  He  felt  confident, 
therefore,  that  so  long  as  he  kept  within  the 
logical  consequences  of  Calvin's  system,  he  could 
not  possibly  misunderstand  our  leading  writers. 
And  no  doubt  this  would  have  been  a  perfectly 
safe  mode  of  proceeding,  provided  he  had  built 
his  opinions  on  the  broad  ground  of  the  ancient 
Church  ;  or  supposing  his  inquiries  had  been 
confined  within  the  narrow  limits  of  some  strictly 
Calvinistic  Confession.  But  the  principle  fails, 
so  soon  as  it  is  applied  to  a  portion  of  that 
Church  Catholic,  which  was  founded  by  Our 
Lord  and  His  Apostles.  Its  writers  may  have 
been  partially  infected  by  the  contagion  of 
modern  opinions,  but  they  could  not  shake  off 

20  "  Baro's  conduct,"  says  Mr.  Goode,  "seems  to  me  to  have 
been  what  we  should  now  call  very  Tractarian,  that  is,  tho- 
roughly disingenuous."  Surely  Mr.  Goode  does  not  act  wise!? 
iu  throwing  out  imputations  of  this  sort.  The  rules  of  Chris- 
tian charity  should  lead  us  to  hope  that  our  opponents  may  be 
honest  as  well  as  ourselves. 


ALWAYS    MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.     261 

their  allegiance  to  the  Confessions  and  Offices  of 
the  Primitive  Church.  The  consent  of  the 
Catholic  Fathers  had  been  formally  recognized 
by  Convocation,  a.  d.  1571,  as  the  standard  of 
Scriptural  exposition.  Now  these  circumstances 
led  Davenant  and  Ward,  as  well  as  various 
others  to  whom  Mr.  Goode  refers,  into  results 
which,  upon  his  theory,  must  seem  wholly  im- 
possible. 

There  were  three  especial  causes  which  con- 
tributed to  produce  this  effect.  The  first  was  the 
repulsive  nature  of  the  doctrine  of  Absolute  Repro- 
bation; from  which  the  Calvinistic  system  cannot 
really  be  dissociated.  And  the  case  of  infants  is 
exactly  that,  in  which  its  harshness  is  most 
striking.  It  was  plainly  a  great  relief,  therefore, 
to  be  able  to  say  with  Davenant,  "  this  is  that 
adoption  to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  which  we 
willingly  acknowledge  is  afforded  to  all  baptized 
infants."21  This  feeling  was  rendered  still 
stronger,  when  men  came  to  compare  the  Cal- 
vinistic dogma  of  the  Reprobation  of  some  in- 
fants, which  the  Church's  declaration  (before  the 
Savoy  Conference,)  "  that  children  being  bap- 
tized, have  all  things  necessary  for  their  salva- 
tion, and  be  undoubtedly  saved."  When  Ward 
quoted  these  words,  Gataker  objected  that  the 
certainty  with  which  the  Church  speaks  of  the 
salvation  of  baptized  infants  is  not  exactly 
affirmed  to  be  attributable  to  the  virtue  of  Bap- 
tism (ex  vi  Baptismi.)  Ward  answers;  "but 
Our  Church  plainly  implies  this,  although  it  does 

21  Lett,  to  Ward.     Vind.  Grat.  Sac'p.  17. 


262 


THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 


not  state  it  in  express  words.  Why,  then,  may 
we  not  say  that  this  work  is  brought  about  by  the 
efficacy  of  Baptism  as  its  instrumental  cause,  as  by 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  its  principal  one  P"22 

To  these  circumstances  was  added  a  third  :  the 
reference  made  to  the  judgment  of  Antiquity ; 
and  its  unequivocal  witness  to  the  belief,  that 
some  real  gift  of  grace  is  always  bestowed  upon 
infants  in  Baptism.  To  this  circumstance  Ward 
directly  refers  in  his  letter  to  Usher ;  and  Dave- 
nant  quotes  as  his  authority  the  statement  of  St. 
Austin  :  "  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  baptized  in- 
fants, although  they  know  it  not."23  Now,  such 
arguments  were  enough  to  show  that  the  doctrine 
of  Reprobation  ought  not  to  be  applied  in  the 
case  of  infants,  even  though  it  was  supposed  to 
be  tenable  in  the  case  of  adults.  And  let  this 
point  of  the  Reprobation  of  infants  be  abandoned, 
and  (so  far  as  concerns  infant  Baptism)  men 
might  receive  the  whole  doctrine  of  baptismal 
grace.  For  since  Calvin's  system  supposed  God 
to  adopt  the  elect  when  He  pleased,  He  might 
adopt  them  in  Baptism  as  well  as  at  any  other 
season.  Abandon  the  idea  that  any  infants  were 
excluded  by  arbitrary  sentence,  and  why  should 
not  all  be  adopted,  who  were  baptized  ?  It  had 
been  held,  as  has  been  shown,  in  the  Ancient 
Church,  that  God's  dealings  with  men  are  the 
counterpart  of  His  Decrees  ;  but  that  those  deal- 
ings might  be  looked  at  as  regarded  the  gift  of 
grace,  or  as  regarded  its  employment.  The  ten- 
dency of  Calvin's   teaching  was  to  confuse  the 

22  Vindiciae  Gratne,  p.  183.  23  Vindiciie  Gratis,  p.  10. 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.     263 

scriptural  statements,  which  express  these  two 
relations  of  the  Divine  Economy ;  and  thus  to 
peril  the  responsibility  of  man.  But  on  one  point 
the  Ancient  Church  was  fully  agreed  with  him ; 
that  as  regarded  the  gift  of  grace,  its  sole  cause 
was  the  Divine  mercy,  and  not  in  any  respect 
that  prevision  of  future  excellence,  which  undis- 
cerning  interpreters  have  supposed  to  be  the  key 
to  our  baptismal  offices.  It  will  be  obvious  then 
how  easy  it  was  for  men,  who  yet  retained  some 
Calvinistic  prejudices,  to  adopt,  as  regarded  the 
case  of  infants,  the  more  liberal  system  of  the 
Ancient  Church.  For  in  respect  to  the  ground 
of  election  the  two  systems  were  agreed,  and  all 
which  it  was  necessary  to  lop  off,  was  the  offen- 
sive tenet  of  infant  Reprobation. 

Thus  it  came  to  pass,  then,  that  even  those  who 
had  been  delegates  at  Dort,  and  whom  the  bitter 
Anti-Arminian  Prynne  refers  to  as  oracles,  adopted 
views,  which  Mr.  Goode  thinks  it  impossible  to 
attribute  to  any  Calvinist.  As  they  did  not  impugn 
Calvin's  system  of  interpretation,  they  were  per- 
plexed, as  Ward  states,  at  finding  so  little  Scriptu- 
ral authority  for  their  teaching ;  but  they  could  not 
shut  their  eyes  to  consequences,  which  followed 
from  the  general  tenor  of  God's  Word,  and  to 
which  such  unequivocal  witness  was  borne  by  the 
Universal  Church,  and  by  the  Church  of  England. 
Had  it  not  been  from  deference  for  Calvin's  system, 
Ward  needed  not  have  said,  "  touching  the  efficacy 
of  Baptism  in  infants,  I  do  acknowledge  it  a  point, 
in  which  the  Scriptures  are  sparing :"  but  he  adds, 
"  howsoever  the  Scripture  speaks  sparingly,  yet 
there  are  general  grounds,  from  the  nature  of  Sacra- 


264  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

ments,  which  may  serve  to  inform  and  direct  our 
judgments  herein.  Again,  I  considered  the  perpe- 
tual Tradition  of  the  Church  in  no  way  to  be  slight- 
ed, where  it  doth  not  cross  the  Scripture,  but  is 
consonant  to  general  grounds  contained  in  them."24 
The  point  of  real  moment,  however,  is  the  unequi- 
vocal manner  in  which  they  express  the  judgment, 
to  which  these  grounds  conducted  them.  Some  ex- 
tracts from  Dr.  Ward's  statements  respecting  the 
efficacy  of  infant  Baptism  are  added  in  an  Appen- 
dix, not  as  a  complete  view  of  the  subject  which 
they  treat,  but  as  showing  that  a  theoretical  admis- 
sion of  Calvin's  doctrine  of  Decrees  is  not  incom- 
patible with  a  belief  in  baptismal  grace.  Nor  are 
Davenant's  words  much  less  decisive.  He  affirms 
that  in  Baptism  u  Infants  are  translated  out  of  the 
old  Adam,  and  incorporated  into  the  New."  "  So 
soon  as  the  guilt  which  he  had  contracted  in  the 
first  Adam  is  removed  from  an  infant.,  he  is  number- 
ed ipso  facto  in  the  family  of  the  second  Adam."25 
And  this  is  a  change,  which  he  speaks  of  as  befall- 
ing "  all  baptized  infants."26  And  the  following 
passage  from  his  letter  to  Ward  leaves  scarcely  any 
thing  to  desire.  After  stating  that  the  sanctification 
of  baptized  infants  depends  chiefly  on  the  remission 
of  original  sin,  he  adds:  "Although  I  would  not 
deny  that  they  are  holy  or  sanctified  on  other 
grounds  also,  as  for  example,  because  they  are  de- 
dicated to  the  Holy  Trinity  ;  for  to  be  dedicated  to 
Gcd  is  in  some  sort  to  be  sanctified  :  because  they 
are  sprinkled  with  the  sacred  blood  of  Christ,  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  remission  of  the  sin, 

24  Usher's  Life,  p.  438.    25  Vindiciae  Gratis,  p.  215.     26  Id.  p.  17. 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.    265 

which  dwells  in  them  ;  because  they  have  the  Holy 
Spirit  dwelling  in  them,  though  not  like  adults  by 
faith,  yet  in  some  secret  manner  to  us  unknown. 
Whence  Augustin  says,  \  in  baptized  infants,  al- 
though they  know  it  not,  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells.' 
But  by  the  inhabitation  of  so  divine  and  sacred  a 
guest,  the  dwelling  cannot  but  receive  such  sancti- 
fication  as  its  condition  admits  of.  Finally,  they 
may  justly  be  called  holy  and  sanctified,  although 
they  receive  neither  the  acts  or  habits  of  faith,  jus- 
tice, nor  infused  grace,  on  account  of  the  Author  of 
Sanctity,  who  works  in  them,  in  some  unspeakable 
manner,  whatever  is  required  of  such  as  they  are, 
in  order  that  they  may  be  esteemed  holy.  What 
this  work  is  in  its  nature,  let  those  explain  who  un- 
derstand it :  I  confess  that  I  understand  it  not."27 

The  above  passage  will  seem  to  most  readers  a 
decisive  argument  against  Mr.  Goode's  opinion,  that 
Bishop  Davenant  u  held  that  spiritual  regeneration 
in  its  full  and  proper  sense  is  not  bestowed  at  Bap- 
tism." But  the  evidence  will  not  be  complete,  un- 
less it  is  shown  how  it  happens  that  he  supposes 
himself  to  be  really  borne  out  by  Davenant's  opi- 
nion. For  such  an  inquiry  will  make  it  appear,  not 
only  that  this  divine  did  not  accord  with  him  in  the 
essential  points  of  the  case,  but  that  all  who  maintain- 
ed those  positions  which  were  admitted  by  Dave- 
nant, and  were  enforced  by  the  laws  of  the  Church 
of  England,  could  not  fail  to  be  directly  opposed  to 
him.  Now  it  is  needful  to  state  in  the  first  place 
(that  which  Mr.  Goode  has  wholly  misconceived,) 
what  is  the  fundamental  point  of  difference  between 

27  Vindicice  Gratiae,  p.  16. 


266  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

him  and  his  antagonists.  "  The  great  and  all- 
important  point  to  be  contended  for,"  he  says,  "  is 
that  an  adult  is  not  necessarily  in  a  state  of  spiritual 
regeneration,  because  he  was  baptized  as  an  infant ; 
that  is,  that  such  spiritual  regeneration  as  is  neces- 
sary for  an  adult,  is  not  always  conferred  upon  in- 
fants when  they  are  baptized."  Now  this  is  so  far 
from  being  the  real  point  at  issue,  that  the  first  of 
these  propositions  is  affirmed  by  no  one.  The  affir- 
mation of  baptismal  regeneration  has  no  tendency 
to  lead  men  to  deny  that  "  after  we  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost,  we  may  depart  from  grace  given." 
The  only  parties  to  whom  this  error  is  attri- 
buted are  the  Calvinists ;  and  it  is  singular  that 
Mr.  Goode  should  at  once  deny  that  a  Calvinist  can 
hold  baptismal  regeneration,  and  yet  charge  upon 
baptismal  regeneration  the  very  error,  which  is  cha- 
racteristic of  Calvinism.  Whereas,  in  truth,  no  ad- 
vocate for  baptismal  regeneration  need  assert  more 
than  is  stated  by  St  Paul:  "  Know  ye  not,  how 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye  be  reprobates  ?" 
And  as  to  the  second  proposition  which  is  insisted 
upon  by  Mr.  Goode,  it  is  universally  admitted  that 
"Baptism  doth  challenge  to  itself  but  the  inchoation 
of  those  graces,  the  consummation  whereof  depend- 
eth  on  mysteries  ensuing."  The  only  thing  which 
Mr.  Goode  can  allege,  as  giving  a  colour  to  his 
statements,  is  that  those  who  have  been  baptized 
are,  or  ought  to  be,  reminded  that  if  any  man  defile 
the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God  destroy.  They 
should  be  exhorted  therefore  to  thank  God  for  call- 
ing them  "  to  this  state  of  salvation,"  and  to  pray 
for  grace  that  they  may  u  continue  in  the  same"  to 
their  lives'  end.     They  should  be  taught  that  "  re- 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.    267 

novation"  is  not,  as  Mr.  Goode  represents,  "  the 
most  important  part  of  regeneration  ;"  because  how- 
ever necessary  the  exertions  of  men,  the  most  mo- 
mentous point  is  the  communication  of  that  Divine 
seed,  whereby  those  who  are  "  born  in  sin"  are 
made  "  children  of  grace."  Hence  they  may  learn 
that  the  want  of  that  "  good  fruit,"  the  absence  of 
which  is  so  often  to  be  regretted,  is  to  be  attributed 
to  the  unkindliness  of  the  stony  soil,  not  to  the  de- 
nial of  that  seed  which  is  designed  to  fecundate  it. 
The  real  point  at  issue  therefore,  is  not  whether  all 
who  have  been  baptized  attain  these  results  (a 
thing  which  none  affirm,)  but  whether  such  a  gift 
was  originally  bestowed  upon  them.  Now  this 
turns  on  the  fact,  whether  all  infants  are  fit  candi- 
cates  for  the  blessings  of  Baptism  or  no.28  And  if 
it  be  necessary  to  carry  the  question  higher,  that 
into  which  it  resolves  itself  is,  whether  those  gifts 
of  grace  which  the  Son  of  God  bestows  through  His 
Mediation  are  capable  of  benefiting  every  age  : 
whether  all  who  draw  corruption  from  the  old 
Adam,  are  capable  of  the  spiritual  indwelling  of  the 
New.  And  this  will  be  found  to  involve  a  still 
further  question,  whether  those  spiritual  blessings, 
which  are  promised  by  God  in  Holy  Scripture,  are 
all  bestowed  through  the  Mediation  of  Christ,  or 
whether  there  exists  any  other  declared  channel 
through  which  Divine  gifts  are  bestowed  upon  men. 
Taking  these,  then,  as  the  main  points  of  differ- 
ence between  Mr.  Goode  and  his  opponents,  with 

28  Mr.  Goode  states  the  essential  point  of  his  own  system  to 
be  a  denial  of  the  universal  worthiness  of  infants  for  Baptism. 
He  puts  forth  as  •*  the  grand  cause  of  the  mistakes''  of  his  oppo- 
nents, that  there  must  be  "  qualifications  in  infants  for  enjoying 
that  blessing." 


268  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

which  does  Bishop  Davenant  really  agree?  Mr. 
Goode  alleges,  that  the  system  of  Davenant  is 
separated  from  his  own  by  points  iC  comparatively 
of  little  moment."  He  calls  Davenant's  notion 
that  of  "  an  infantine  regeneration,"  and  declares 
it  to  be  "  clearly  maintainable  in  our  Church." 
It  must  obviously  be  compatible,  then,  with  his 
own  main  position — namely,  that  a  difference  exists 
in  infants;  that  some  are  qualified  recipients  of 
baptismal  grace,  while  others  are  incapable  of 
receiving  it.  Now,  upon  what  does  this  capacity 
or  incapacity  of  the  infant  depend  ?  If  it  were  an 
adult,  Mr.  Goode  might  say  that  it  depended  upon 
its  faith.  This  would  lead  to  another  question  ; 
but  since  the  infant  neither  has  faith,  nor  can  have 
it,  we  may  return  to  the  former  one.  On  what, 
then,  does  it  depend,  that  some  infants  are  qualified 
recipients  of  the  pardoning  grace  bestowed  in  Bap- 
tism, others  not  so?  The  notion  of  a  gift  implies 
two  parties,  and  we  may  look  either  to  Him  who 
gives,  or  him  who  receives  it.  Does  the  discrepancy 
arise  from  an  absolute  Decree  passed  by  Almighty 
God,  bestowing  a  capacity  upon  some  infants,  of 
which  others  are  not  made  partakers  ?  This  would 
be  to  admit  the  doctrine  of  Reprobation  in  its  harshest 
form  ;  for  it  would  be  to  recognize  an  absolute  sen- 
tence, from  which,  therefore,  the  children  of  Chris- 
tian parents  would  not  be  exempted  any  more  than 
others.  From  such  a  conclusion  Mr.  Goode  revolts. 
Such  children,  he  says,  speaking  of  those  devout 
persons  "  as  infants,"  are  "  acceptable  in  the  eye  of 
God."  This  plainly  throws  us  on  the  other  side  of 
the  alternative,  as  supplying  the  reason  why  some 
children  are  to  be  discriminated  from  others.    For  it 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.      269 

is  to  renounce  the  idea  of  such  an  absolute  Decree, 
as  is  based  solely  on  the  sovereignty  of  God. 

We  turn  then  to  the  receiver  of  the  gift,  and  ask 
what  there  is  in  his  condition  or  circumstances,  on 
which  his  qualification  can  be  built  ?  Now  the 
infant's  condition  can  plainly  supply  no  qualifica- 
tion, by  which  one  infant  can  be  discriminated 
from  another.  Every  child  of  Adam  is  born  a 
child  of  wrath  ;  he  can  in  himself  merit  nothing. 
And  even  the  provision  of  future  faith  and  repent- 
ance (to  which  Mr.  Goode  and  others  frequently 
refer  as  a  not  improbable  qualification  for  baptis- 
mal fitness,)  has  been  shown  to  be  a  consideration 
which  none  but  Pelagians  can  consistently  adduce. 
There  remains  nothing,  then,  but  the  child's  cir- 
cumstances. And  what  circumstances  can  there 
be  in  an  infant's  history,  except  the  accidents  of 
his  birth  ?  To  ask  what  are  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  the  infant,  is  only  to  ask  of  what  parents 
he  is  born.  So  that  this  is  the  qualification  to 
which  we  ultimately  come,  as  the  only  one,  except 
an  Absolute  Decree,  which  can  consistently  be 
adduced.  This  it  is,  accordingly,  which  Mr. 
Goode  adduces.  "  Many  might  be  inclined  to 
think,"  he  says,  "  that  all  infants  of  a  true  believer 
receive  in  Baptism  a  spiritual  blessing."  On  this, 
then,  he  rests  that  theory  of  "  infantine  regenera- 
tion," which  he  attributes  to  Davenant ;  and  it  is 
plain,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  if  any  bless- 
ing is  supposed  to  accrue  from  Baptism,  there  re- 
mains no  other  qualification  which  can  be  referred 
to,  so  soon  as  the  theory  of  Reprobation  has  been 
abandoned. 

Now  what  is  the  real  nature  of  this  system, 
2T 


270  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

which  Mr.  Goode  tells  us,  falls  clearly  within  the 
limits  of  a  Churchman's  belief?  "The  faith  of 
the  parent  is,"  he  says,  "  so  far  as  concerns  ori- 
ginal sin,  mercifully  reckoned  by  God  as  imput- 
able to  the  infant."  And  he  adds,  "if  we  can 
justly  call  the  children  of  every  true  believer 
holy,  we  can  as  justly,  after  they  have  received 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  in  Baptism,  call  them 
regenerate."  Mr.  Goode  would  seem  to  ascribe 
that  Holiness,  which  St.  Paul  attributes  to  the  in- 
fants of  Christians,  to  something  which  they  have 
by  birth,  and  not,  as  did  the  ancient29  interpreters 
of  St.  Paul's  words  (1  Cor.  vii.  14,)  to  that  holi- 
ness which  they  gain  by  Baptism.  But  supposing 
this  interpretation  to  be  admitted  in  the  greatest 
latitude  of  which  it  is  susceptible,  "  it  is  yet  ob- 
vious," as  St.  Austin  maintained  against  Pelagius, 
by  whom  this  view  of  the  passage  was  adopted, 
"  that  whatever  be  meant  by  St.  Paul's  word 
"holy,"  it  cannot  refer  to  the  making  children 
Christians,  nor  to  the  remission  of  their  sins,  un- 
less they  are  admitted  among  the  faithful  by  the 
institution  of  Christ — by  His  Church  and  Sacra- 
ments."30 No  limit  can  be  assigned,  of  course, 
to  that  infinite  mercy  of  God,  which  may,  if  lie 
wills,  be  extended  to  all  children  :  but  in  this 
place  we  are  concerned  only  with  His  revealed 
will — with  the  Christian  covenant.  In  what  way 
is  it  then,  that  within  the  revealed  Kingdom  of 
grace,   "children   are   so  far  interested   in  their 


20  Wall  on  Infant  Baptism,  Part  i.  c.  19,  vol.  i.  p.  386.     Oxf. 
1844.     Vide  also  the  fourth  of  Hammond's  Six  Queries. 
30  St.  Aug.  quoted  hy  Wall,  p.  3S5. 


ALWAYS  MAINTAINED  BAPTISMAL  GRACE.     271 

parents'  faith,  that,"  as  Mr.  Goode  affirms,  "  they 
may  be  reckoned  by  us,  as  infants,  acceptable  in 
the  eye  of  God" — so  that  "  the  faith  of  the  parent 
is  accepted  on  behalf  of  the  child,  as  giving  it  a 
title  to  Baptism  ?" 

Now  in  what  manner  are  children  allied  to 
their  parents  ?  Are  they  really  one  with  them  or 
no  ?  They  are  surely  separate  beings,  with  an 
individuality  of  their  own,  in  which  their  parents 
have  no  part.  Their  parents  may  be  bound  to 
them  by  sympathy  ;  by  identity  they  cannot.  The 
children  are  near  to  them ;  but  not  themselves. 
Else  what  would  be  the  condition  of  infants  whose 
parents  are  removed  by  death  i  It  follows  that 
though  the  faith  of  the  parents  may  lead  them  to 
do  many  acts,  by  which  the  condition  of  the  child- 
ren may  be  effected,  yet  that  the  faith  of  the 
parent  cannot  be  actually  imputed  to  the  child. 
The  parent  has  by  God's  law  a  certain  authority 
over  the  child,  and  this  involves  various  coercive 
acts,  by  which  the  child's  destiny  is  largely  af- 
fected. But  this  is  wholly  different  from  any 
mystical  transfusion  of  the  one  into  the  other.  The 
parent  may  bring  his  child  in  his  arms  to  the 
font,  but  no  exercise  of  his  volition  will  put  mo- 
tion into  the  child's  limbs  and  enable  it  to  walk 
there.  So  that  the  two  beings  remain  wholly 
distinct  :  "the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of 
the  father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the  iniquity 
of  the  son."  There  is  One  Only  Partaker  of  man's 
nature,  whose  perfect  merits  are  capable  of  over- 
flowing, so  as  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  His 
brethren.  And  specific  means  have  been  or- 
dained— namely,  his  Holy  Sacraments,  whereby 


212  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES. 

His  sanctified  Manhood  may  be  transfused  into 
all  members  of  His  Mystical  Body.  To  attribute 
the  same  thing  to  every  devout  parent,  to  imagine 
that  his  faith  and  devotion  is  so  efficacious  that 
"  the  faith  of  the  parent"  may  be  "  reckoned  by 
God  as  imputable  to  the  infant,"  is  to  make  every 
Christian  parent  a  Mediator  between  God  and 
man.  It  is  something  distinct  from  the  assertion, 
which  none  deny,  that  the  parent's  outward  acts 
affect  the  condition  of  his  child  :  for  it  is  to  sup- 
pose an  influence  independent  of  those  outward 
acts,  whereby  men  are  naturally  able  to  benefit 
one  another.  It  is  to  assert  that  there  exists  two 
recognized  means  of  salvation,  one  through  that 
gift  of  saving  grace,  which  Christ  bestows  upon 
those  who  by  their  own  act  are  joined  to  him,  the 
other  through  that  faith  of  parents,  which  is  imput- 
able to  their  children.  The  common  objection 
to  the  Invocation  of  Saints  applies,  therefore,  with 
tenfold  force  to  this  system  of  doctrine.  Without 
entering  upon  a  subject  foreign  to  the  present  in- 
quiry, it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  Invocation  of 
Saints  is  defended  by  those  who  practise  it,  on 
the  ground  that  their  advocacy  is  not  irrespective 
of  Our  Lord's  Mediation,  but  is  built  upon  it. 
If  the  Saints  were  supposed  to  be  mediators  be- 
tween God  and  man,  independently  of  the  One 
Mediator  by  whom  God  and  man  are  truly  united, 
its  very  defenders  admit  that  the  practice  would 
be  unjustifiable.  Rut  the  doctrine  before  us  is  di- 
rectly opposed  to  Christ's  Mediation,  because  it 
does  not  profess  merely  to  employ,  but  to  super- 
sede it.  A  mode  of  Union  with  Christ  having  been 
provided  in  Holy  Baptism,  it  steps  in  and  denies 


ALWAYS    MAINTAINED    BAPTISMAL    GRACE.  273 

its  validity,  unless  children  have  first  been  brought 
near  to  God  through  the  excellence  of  their  pa- 
rents. The  primary  sanctification  of  Infants  can- 
not be  based  therefore  on  the  Mediation  of  Christ, 
because  they  are  not  competent  subjects  for  His 
Mediation  until  it  has  been  effected.  Unless  they 
have  first  obtained  access  to  God  through  the  in- 
tervention of  the  earthly  mediators,  the  influence 
of  that  Heavenly  Mediator  cannot  avail  them. 
So  that  not  only  is  something  added  to  the  Christ- 
ian system,  but  a  new  system  is  substituted  in  its 
place. 

Such  is  the  opinion  which  Mr.  Goode  in  effect 
attributes  to  Davenant,  and  which  he  affirms  to 
be  "  clearly  maintainable  in  our  Church."  No 
doubt  he  is  far  from  designing  to  countenance  so 
fatal  a  heresy,  any  more  than  he  intends  to  sanc- 
tion Pelagianism,  by  representing  the  gifts  of  grace 
as  contingent  on  the  prevision  of  future  excellence. 
But  since  the  system  of  Sacraments  is  the  real 
mean  whereby  the  Mediation  of  Christ  Our  Lord 
has  its  effect,  these  errors  are  the  invariable  and 
necessary  effect  of  denying  the  efficacy  of  baptis- 
mal grace.  Ask  at  Geneva  and  at  Boston,  whe- 
ther such  is  not  the  case.  And  even  those  who  do 
not  discern  this  as  an  intellectual  consequence, 
ought  at  least  to  profit  by  the  lessons  of  experience. 
For  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  gradual 
progress  of  societies  is  the  true  exponent  of  the 
principles  and  opinions  upon  which  they  are  built. 
Individuals  may  admit  a  theory  for  years  without 
following  it  into  its  legitimate  consequences ;  but 
communities  are  controlled  by  laws,  not  less  in- 
exorable than  those  of  physical  nature,  and  cannot 


274  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES. 

admit  principles,  without  accepting  their  logical 
results.  Now  since  Sacraments  are  our  appointed 
means  of  union  with  the  Humanity  of  Christ,  and 
since  it  is  through  His  human  nature  that  He  dis- 
charges that  work  of  Mediation,  whereby  He  is 
the  One  only  revealed  channel  of  intercourse  be- 
tween God  and  man,  those  who  deny  or  under- 
value these  means  of  access,  must  needs  appease 
the  lono-in^s  of  their  nature  through  some  other 
method  of  approach. 

It  is  wholly  without  ground,  however,  that  Mr. 
Goode  attributes  such  a  theory  to  Davenant.  This 
may  be  shown  by  referring  to  that  characteristic 
feature  in  Mr.  Goode's  own  system — namely,  that 
the  benefits  of  Baptism  are  not  supposed  by  him 
to  be  offered  to  all  infants,  but  only  to  those  who 
have  certain  qualifications.  Since  these  qualifica- 
tions cannot  be  found  in  the  infant  itself,  Mr. 
Goode,  we  have  seen,  is  compelled  to  seek  for 
them  in  its  parents.  Unless  infants  are  first  par- 
takers of  a  Divine  gift  through  the  intervention 
of  their  parents,  they  are  not  qualified,  he  says,  to 
receive  that  Gfift  of  a  new  nature  which  is  bestowed 
upon  all  members  of  His  Body  through  the  Me- 
diation of  Christ.  Baptism,  that  is,  does  not  make 
any  persons  holy,  whom  it  does  not  find  so.  The 
presence  of  original  sin,  which  renders  it  neces- 
sary;  and  the  absence  of  actual  sin,  which  pre- 
cludes the  opposition  of  the  responsible  principle 
— these  are  not  sufficient  qualifications  for  Baptism, 
since  these  all  children  possess;  but  they  must 
first  be  rendered  holy  by  the  faith  of  their  parents, 
and  then  they  may  be  brought  to  Christ.  Now, 
this  view  of  things  is  so  far  identical  with  that  of 


ALWAYS    MAINTAINED    BAPTISMAL    GRACE.    275 

the  Anabaptists,  that  if  Mr.  Goode  differs  from 
them  in  maintaining  that  the  children  of  devout 
Christians  ought  to  be  baptized,  he  agrees  with 
them  in  thinking  that  all  other  children  ought  not. 
For  "  those  who  think  themselves  bound  to  bap- 
tize children  only  by  virtue  of  the  parent's  right," 
says  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  "  must  run  into  many- 
perplexing  scruples  about  baptizing  children,  and 
be  forced  to  exclude  the  far  greater  number  of 
those  that  are  offered."31  But  whatever  may  be 
Mr.  Goode's  mode  of  reconciling  it  with  his  prac- 
tice, he  puts  forward  this  principle  repeatedly,  as 
one  which  in  theory  cannot  be  disputed.  His 
whole  opinions  respecting  Baptism  are  based  on 
the  supposition,  that  "  not  all  infants,  even  in  the 
sight  of  men,  can  be  considered  as  fit  subjects  for 
that  holy  rite."  And  this  point  he  supposes  must 
be  conceded  by  all  who  agree  with  him;  "  other- 
wise" he  says,  "our  system  of  theology  is  thrown 
into  letter  confusion."  And  here,  therefore,  Mr. 
Goode's  system  comes  into  direct  collision  with 
that  of  Davenant,  since  Davenant  was  one  of 
those  divines  who  gave  judgment  at  the  Council 
of  Dort,  that  the  "  children  of  ethnic  parents 
ought  to  be  baptized."  And  herein  he  did  but  ex- 
press the  same  judgment,  which  had  been  pro- 
nounced by  the  whole  English  Church,  a.  d.  1604, 
through  its  Convocation.  For  at  the  very  period, 
when  Mr.  Goode  alleges  Calvinism  to  have  been 
so  absolutely  predominant  (the  first  year  of  James 
I.,)  were  passed  those  Canons — the  twenty-ninlh 
forbidding  a  "  parent  to  act  a  Godfather  for  his  own 

31  Unreasonableness  of  Separation,  Part  iii.  36,  3. 


276  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES 

child,"  and  the  sixty-eighth  enjoining  that  ministers 
should  "not  refuse  to  christen" — by  which  the 
Church  gave  a  practical  proof  that  whatever  theo- 
ries might  prevail  respecting  God's  Decrees,  there 
was  no  intention  of  surrendering  the  ancient  belief  in 
the  validity  of  Sacraments.  Now,  it  has  been  often 
observed  that  the  Canons  of  1604  were  not  the  pub- 
lication of  a  new  law,  but  only  an  arrangement  and 
ratification  of  those  usages,  which  were  previously 
in  existence.  And  of  this  the  instance  before  us  is 
an  example.  For  our  Church's  chief  advocate  in 
the  time  of  Elizabeth  defends  her  for  not  adopting 
that  course,  which  Mr.  Goode  confesses  on  his 
theory  to  be  absolutely  essential.  And  he  defends 
her  by  pointing  out  the  very  inconvenience  which 
this  system  has  been  shown  to  involve — namely, 
that  it  would  attribute  to  parents  that  office  of  Me- 
diation, which  belongs  only  to  Christ.  "It  is  not 
the  virtue  of  our  parents,  nor  the  faith  of  any  other, 
that  can  give  us  the  true  holiness,  which  we  have 
by  virtue  of  our  new  birth."33  It  is  in  vain,  there- 
fore, for  Mr.  Goode  to  quote  a  few  words  from 
Hooker,  which  imply,  as  he  supposes,  that  in  his 
earlier  years  that  great  man  had  received  the  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrine  of  Perseverance.  If  this  were  as 
certain  as  it  is  dubious,  it  would  furnish  no  kind  of 
answer  to  Dr.  Ward's  assertion :  "  Mr.  Hooker 
saith  as  we  say,  touching  the  efficacy  of  Baptism  in 
infants,  and  yet  holdeth  the  doctrine  de  perseveran- 
tiafidelium  as  well  as  we  do.553 

Nor  is  it  Hooker  only,  but  every  one   of  those 
great  lights  of  the  Elizabethan  age,  to  whom  Mr. 

32  Eccles.  Pol.  v.  64.  33  TJsher's  Life,  p.  439. 


ALWAYS    MAINTAINED    BAPTISMAL    GRACE.     277 

Goode  has  referred,  by  whom  in  this  capital  parti- 
cular he  is  deserted.  So  that  we  have  a  decisive 
proof  that  the  theory  of  Ward  and  Davenant  gave 
expression  only  to  those  truths,  which  had  been 
affirmed  by  the  acts  of  their  predecessors.  Mr. 
Goode  could  not,  therefore,  even  if  he  wTould,  cut 
these  men  off  from  the  chain  of  his  authorities,  to 
which  they  are  linked  by  unity  of  principle  as  well 
as  by  the  opinion  of  their  age.  Davenant,  Mr. 
Goode  admits,  "  no  one  will  deny  to  be  a  Calvin- 
ist;"  and  Prynne,  with  wThom  in  his  arguments  he 
precisely  harmonizes,  appeals  to  Ward  as  one  of 
the  "  three  famous  Divines  of  our  Church,"  wThom 
he  cites  as  witnesses  against  Arminianism.  WTho, 
indeed,  wrere  the  reputed  heads  of  the  Calvinistic 
party,  if  not  the  delegates  at  Dort  ?  So  that  Mr. 
Goode  is  utterly  put  out  of  court  by  his  owrn  wit- 
nesses. His  whole  theory  turns  upon  the  assertion, 
that  "  no  man,  holding  the  system  of  doctrines 
called  Calvinistic,  can  consistently  hold  that  the 
universal  effect  of  Baptism  in  infants  is  to  produce 
spiritual  regeneration."  But  here  we  have  leaders 
of  the  Calvinistic  party,  wrho  not  only  affirmed  this 
last  truth,  but  wrote  letters,  and  published  disputa- 
tions to  prove  their  consistency.  How  could 
things,  wrhich  wrere  incompatible  in  theory,  be  har- 
monized in  fact  ?  And  these  men  are  linked  to  the 
generations  which  preceded  them,  not  only  by  uni- 
formity in  their  theoretical  professions,  but  by  the 
more  weighty  argument  of  accordance  in  their  acts. 

Here,  then,  I  terminate  this  historical  survey  of 
the  sentiments  of  our   older  writers.     It  has   been 
seen,  that  our  Formularies  were  not  compiled  by 
24 


278  the:  English  divines 

Calvinists;  and  that  if  some  of  the  distinguished 
men  who  have  adorned  our  Church  accepted  the 
Calvinistic  theory  of  Absolute  Decrees,  yet  that  it 
does  not  follow  that  they  must  have  rejected  the 
doctrine  of  Sacramental  grace.  It  was  open  to 
any  of  them  to  adopt  that  course,  which  some  of 
them  have  been  shown  to  have  adopted.  Suppose, 
however,  the  matter  were  otherwise.  Suppose,  for 
argument's  sake,  that  Mr.  Goode's  theory  could  be 
substantiated  ;  and  that  those  who  compiled  our 
Liturgical  Offices  could  be  shown  to  have  been 
such  rigid  Calvinists,  that  they  could  not  believe  in 
the  universality  of  those  gifts  of  grace  which  they 
proffered  to  others.  Yet  how  after  all  would  this 
profit  him — what  excuse  would  the  example  of 
their  forefathers  afford  to  the  clergy  of  the  present 
day,  if  they  say  one  thing  and  believe  another? 
Would  not  the  people  of  England  rise  up  as  one 
man  against  our  established  system,  if  they  were 
satisfied  that  it  was  only  to  be  supported  by  sup- 
positions which  were  based  upon  artifice  and 
fraud  ? 

That  very  many,  of  the  laity  especially,  have 
been  induced  to  question  or  disbelieve  baptismal 
grace,  is  too  true  ;  but  most  of  them  are  rather  in- 
fluenced by  its  lack  of  effect  (a  thing  which  must 
be  traced  to  those  various  causes  by  which  Our 
Lord  accounts  for  the  unfruitfulness  of  the  Divine 
seed,)  than  by  any  affection  for  the  rigors  of  Cal- 
vinism. Indeed,  I  feel  persuaded  that  Mr.  Goode 
did  not  take  the  best  means  of  rendering  his  prin- 
ciples acceptable  to  the  English  mind  when  he 
based  them  on  this  system.  For  besides  the  harsh- 
ness, which  has  been  commonly  objected  to  it — its 


ALWAYS    MAINTAINED    BAPTISMAL    GRACE.    279 

combination  with  our  established  Formularies  offends 
against  that  love  of  truth,  which  is  the  characteris- 
tic virtue  of  our  nation.  For  what  is  Mr.  Goode's 
hypothesis?  Grace,  he  says,  is  offered  generally 
and  unconditionally  in  the  ordinances  of  the  Church, 
but  this  general  olfer  was  meant  to  be  qualified  by 
the  fact,  that  for  a  certain  portion  only  of  mankind 
is  this  blessing  of  salvation  designed,  while  the  rest 
must  fall  by  inevitable  sentence  into  endless  misery. 
This  secret  decree  and  sentence  of  God  is  that 
which  puts  a  limit  upon  the  apparently  expansive 
language  of  our  service.  Now  I  wave  all  men- 
tion of  the  harshness  of  this  system — of  its  tendency 
to  encourage  some  in  carelessness,  and  to  plunge 
others  into  despair.  At  present  I  speak  of  it  only 
as  offending  against  that  fairness  and  love  of  truth, 
which  is  at  the  basis  of  all  morality.  For  suppose 
these  events  to  have  happened  in  the  case  of 
some  earthly  sovereign,  wTho  offered  terms  of  par- 
don and  grace  to  his  rebellious  subjects.  Suppose 
that  through  his  appointed  ministers  he  made 
known  those  general  offers,  from  which  there 
seemed  to  be  no  exceptions.  Let  them  include, 
not  only  the  adult  offenders,  but  likewise  the  infant 
heirs  of  those  whose  parents  had  forfeited  their 
rights.  Suppose,  then,  that  after  these  terms  had 
been  publicly  promulgated,  it  was  found  that  they 
were  limited  by  some  private  list  of  exceptions  pre- 
pared by  the  Prince.  Let  this  list  not  extend 
merely  to  the  grown  offenders,  who  might  be  sup- 
posed to  provoke  censure  by  their  suspected  dis- 
loyalty, but  let  it  compromise  also  the  infant  claim- 
ants of  the  promised  grace.  Now,  would  it  be 
any  excuse  to  the  ministers  by  whom   such  pro- 


280  THE    ENGLISH    DIVINES,    ETC. 

mises  were  made  public,  that  they  had  themselves 
entertained  a  private  conviction  that  they  were  not 
unqualified  ?  Would  their  conviction  of  the  ex- 
istence of  a  secret  decree,  by  which  alone  men 
were  capacitated  to  share  in  the  public  offer,  ex- 
onerate them  for  making  public  what  they  knew  to 
be  deceptive  ?  What  would  be  said  of  such 
ministers  ?  We  may  add,  what  would  be  said  of 
such  a  Prince  ?  And  shall  that  which  would  dis- 
credit a  human  Potentate,  be  attributed  to  the 
God  of  truth  ?  "  Shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the 
earth  do  right  ?"  Let  not  men  question,  then  the 
certainty  of  the  Divine  Promises,  even  if  they  are 
unable  to  reconcile  them  with  those  mysteries  of 
the  Divine  Decrees,  which  lie  too  deep  for  their 
sight.  Let  not  man  "  make  his  retreat  to  the 
mysteries  of  God's  unfathomable  counsels,  as  the 
reason  of  that  (which  is  its  contradictory,)  his  at- 
tempting to  fathom  and  define  them."  God's  pro- 
mises are  to  be  "  taken  as  they  be  generally  set 
forth  in  Holy  Scripture."  For  His  promises  are  as 
certain  as  His  existence,  and  His  truth  as  unfailing 
as  His  power. 


281 


CONCLUSION. 

The  considerations  adduced  in  the  previous 
Chapters,  have  been  designed  to  lead  to  a  more 
full  comprehension  of  the  exact  points,  respecting 
which  those  who  differ  on  the  question  of  Holy 
Baptism  are  at  issue ;  and  thus  to  enable  the  rea- 
der to  discern  whether  the  Church  of  England 
has  really  pronounced  any  opinion  between  the 
conflicting  parties.  I  shall  now  briefly  recapitu- 
late what  has  been  stated,  in  order  that  the  dif- 
ferent systems  which  claim  assent  maybe  brought 
more  pointedly  into  contrast,  and  that  it  may  be 
distinctly  understood  what  are  the  alternatives 
which  lie  before  us. 

It  has  been  stated,  then,  in  the  preceding  pages, 
that  Regeneration  is  the  re-creation  of  man's  na- 
ture in  Christ  {Chap,  i.)  That  great  event,  which 
so  long  lay  hid  in  the  womb  of  time,  was  not  fully 
made  known  till  in  the  Advent  of  the  Son  of  Man 
it  was  accomplished.  Yet  its  Decree  in  the  secret 
counsels  of  the  All-merciful  was  the  redeeming 
principle  of  man's  race  ever  since  the  Fall ;  and 
its  Promulgation  through  tradition,  type,  or  pro- 
phecy, gave  their  significance  to  the  various  rites 
either  of  Jewish  or  Patriarchal  worship.  But  with 
these  we  have  no  present  concern  ;  we  need  not 
ask  how  far  they  rested  on  supernatural  gifts,  and 
how  far  on  natural  devotion ;  seeing  that  the 
present  inquiry  refers  to  the  religion  of  grace,  not 
24* 


282  CONCLUSION. 

that  of  nature  ;  nor  yet  that  its  object  is  Judaism, 
but  Christianity.  By  the  Christian  religion  is 
meant  the  scheme  of  Christ's  Mediation — that  new 
law,  whereby  it  pleased  God  that  in  the  Humanity 
of  the  One  Atoning  Mediator  there  should  be  em- 
bodied  those  Divine  gifts,  by  which  the  degeneracy 
of  man's  nature  might  be  remedied.  Now  the 
apppointed  means,  whereby  each  individual  enters 
into  the  line  of  this  regenerate  race,  is  Holy  Bap- 
tism. This  has  been  shown  to  be  the  revealed 
statement  of  Holy  Scripture  [Chap,  ii.,)  and  to  be 
taught  by  the  Church  of  England  in  her  public 
Offices  {Chap,  iii.)  And  it  has  been  shown  fur- 
ther, that  belief  in  this  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Re- 
generation is  of  radical  importance  ;  not  merely 
on  account  of  the  practical  consequences  which 
it  directly  involves  (by  suggesting  grounds  for 
watchfulness  and  gratitude,)  but  still  more  as  fur- 
nishing a  criterion  of  men's  general  belief  in  the 
sacramental  efficacy  of  Our  Lord's  Mediation 
[Chap,  iv.) 

These  positive  statements  received  fuller  eluci- 
dation in  the  course  of  those  negative  ones,  by 
which  they  were  followed.  For  it  was  essential 
to  show  in  vindication  of  the  views  just  recited, 
that  the  Primitive  doctrine  of  Divine  Decrees  in 
no  way  interfered  with  those  scriptural  promises, 
which  are  founded  upon  the  Mediator's  Sacra- 
mental agency  [Chop,  v.)  And  when  we  pass 
from  the  Primitive  doctrine  of  Decrees  to  that  of 
Calvinism,  we  found  that  the  efficacy  of  Sacra- 
mental grace  was  fully  avowed  by  some  of  very 
chief  adherents  of  the  latter  system  (Chap,  vii.) 
Yet  this  circumstance   is  more  valuable,  as  prov- 


CONCLUSION.  283 

ing  the  fairness  of  those  who  thus  expressed 
themselves,  than  as  indicating  the  judgment  of 
the  English  Church.  For  not  only  are  its  For- 
mularies too  explicit  to  be  explained  away,  but 
it  has  been  shown  that  those  who  compiled  them 
did  not  themselves  accord  with  the  sentiments 
of  Calvin  [Chap,  vi.) 

The  Church's  estimate,  then,  of  Holy  Baptism, 
may  be  expressed  in  the  two  following  proposi- 
tions— first,  Baptism  is  the  appointed  means 
whereby  the  Divine  Giver  is  pleased  to  bestow 
His  grace  for  the  regeneration  of  men.  Secondly, 
This  gift  is  bestowed  upon  all  infants,  to  whom 
Holy  Baptism  is  duly  administered.  And  these 
assertions  bring  the  Church's  doctrine  into  direct 
contrast  with  the  two  counter-systems,  by  which 
it  is  opposed.  For  they  will  be  found  to  turn 
upon  the  denial  of  these  two  assertions — the  first 
maintaining  that  Grace  is  not  bestowed  by  the 
Giver  through  Baptism  ;  the  second,  that  if  be- 
stowed at  times,  it  is  not  bestowed  upon  all  in- 
fants, to  whom  Holy  Baptism  is  duly  administered. 
I  shall  briefly  recall  to  the  reader's  attention  the 
grounds  upon  which  these  two  counter-systems 
are  founded,  and  the  considerations  by  which  the 
Church's  doctrine  has  been  maintained  against 
them. 

Those  wTho  deny  that  God  bestows  grace 
through  Baptism,  found  their  objections  on  two 
circumstances  ;  first,  the  incongruity  between  an 
outward  rite  and  an  inwrard  blessing;  and  next, 
the  want  of  result  by  which  it  is  actually  attended. 
It  has  been  shown,  in  reply  to  the  last  objection, 
that   no  argument,  based   on  the  inefficiency  of 


%2S4  CONCLUSION. 

Baptism,  can  be  admitted,  while  the  Church- 
Discipline  and  Church-Education  remain  in  their 
present  unsatisfactory  state  (p.  43.)  The  other 
objection  was  shown  to  be  directed  against  the 
system  of  Mediation  at  large;  and  to  be  founded 
upon  a  forgetfulness  that  the  law  of  grace  has 
superseded  the  law  of  nature  (p.  46.)  For  if  it  be 
allowed  that  all  spiritual  blessings  are  communi- 
cated to  mankind  through  the  Humanity  of  the 
Second  Adam,  it  is  no  objection  against  the  re- 
vealed media  of  Christian  communion,  that  they 
are  not  founded  on  that  natural  relation  of  mind 
to  mind,  whereby  the  spirits  of  men  were  origi- 
nally fitted  to  hold  intercourse  with  their  Spiritual 
Maker.  So  that  the  efficacy  of  Baptism  is  an  out- 
post which  the  Church  has  to  maintain  in  that 
protracted  but  ineffectual  warfare,  which  the  pride 
of  human  reason  continues  to  wao-e  against  the 
Faith  of  the  Cross. 

The  objection  just  mentioned,  which  is  founded, 
in  truth,  upon  the  system  of  Rationalism,  is  of 
course  applicable  to  Baptism  at  large  ;  but  the 
Baptism  of  infants  is  the  point  against  which  its 
assaults  are  peculiarly  directed.  This  may  be 
owing  in  part  to  the  circumstance  that  infant 
Baptism  is  the  rule,  and  adult  Baptism  the  excep- 
tion. For  though  Baptism  began  with  adults,  yet 
so  soon  as  the  Church  had  entered  upon  her 
course,  she  gathered  to  herself  infants,  as  the  na- 
tural recipients  of  her  earliest  blessing.  So  that 
their  case  has  suggested  her  common  usages,  and 
the  language  of  her  offices.  A  further  reason  is, 
that  infant  Baptism  supplies  so  effectual  a  criterion 
for  discriminating  the  agency  of  the  Divine  Giver 


CONCLUSION.  285 

of  grace  from  its  human  receivers  (p.  128.)  So 
that  if  the  efficacy  of  infant  Baptism  be  admitted, 
it  follows  at  once  that  the  Humanity  of  the  Second 
Adam  is  a  channel  through  which  God  bestows 
heavenly  blessings.  And  this  is  the  very  point  in 
contest  between  the  Church  and  the  Rationalism 
of  the  age.  Men  admit  readily  that  God  bestows 
spiritual  gifts,  provided  He  is  supposed  to  bestow 
them  through  those  secret  influences,  by  which  He 
sways  the  hearts  of  His  creatures.  For  this  is  but 
to  admit  that  law  of  creation,  which  supposes  the 
mind  to  retain  a  natural  relation  to  its  Parent 
Spirit ;  it  is  no  interruption  therefore  of  the  course 
of  nature,  and  does  not  supersede  the  usual  pro- 
cess of  thought  (p.  136.)  That  which  men  are 
reluctant  to  admit  is  the  Mediation  of  the  God- 
man — that  "  God"  is  "  in  Christ,  reconciling  to 
Himself  the  world."  For  this  brings  in  the  whole 
system  of  the  Church — its  services,  its  servants, 
its  Sacramental  ordinances,  as  being  that  peculiar 
agency,  whereby  the  line  of  the  New  Adam  super- 
sedes the  line  of  the  old  one. 

Now  this  leads  to  the  second  of  those  two  sys- 
tems, which  is  opposed  to  that  of  the  Church  ;  a 
system  which  has  its  origin  in  different  motives 
from  the  first,  and  rests  its  objections  on  other 
grounds.  If  its  adherents  deny  the  efficacy  of  the 
Sacramental  system,  it  is  not  from  any  professed 
intent  of  maintaining  the  dignity  of  nature,  but 
from  fear  lest  religion  herself  should  be  prejudiced 
by  dependence  on  external  forms.  This  is  no 
doubt  a  groundless  apprehension  ;  for  there  is  no 
reason  why  a  high  estimate  of  the  importance  and 
efficacy  of  God's  grace  should  interfere  with   any 


286  CONCLUSION. 

man's  conscientiousness.  Yet  this  fear  leads  many 
persons,  who  allow  that  God  bestows  grace  at 
times  in  Baptism,  to  deny  that  grace  is  bestowed 
upon  all  infants  wTho  are  duly  baptized. 

The  reason  wrhy  infant  Baptism  is  the  peculiar 
point  in  which  these  parties  come  into  collision  with 
the  Church's  declarations,  is  only  because  it  affords 
the  readiest  criterion  for  determining  whether  the 
blessing  is  supposed  to  depend  on  God's  act  in  the 
ordinance  itself,  or  on  the  value  of  those  disposi- 
tions which  men  bring  to  its  reception.  Mr.  Goode 
states  that  his  anxiety  is,  lest  the  dignity  of  the 
ministerial  office  should  be  overrated,  and  too  much 
importance  be  attached  to  the  persons  by  whom 
Baptism  is  administered.  He  forgets,  apparently, 
that  where  this  Sacrament  is  most  highly  thought 
of,  as  for  example  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  its 
validity  is  not  supposed  to  rest  upon  the  character 
of  the  administrator ;  and  that  in  our  own  Church 
it  was  the  Puritan  party  who  wTere  anxious  to  con- 
fine its  ministration  to  the  clergy,  and  its  celebra- 
tion to  the  occasions  of  public  worship.  So  that 
the  case  does  not  turn  upon  the  person  of  the  ad- 
ministrator, but  on  the  question  whether  words  and 
elements  have  been  really  invested  with  any  super- 
natural efficacy,  by  being  appointed  to  be  the  means 
of  admission  into  the  mystical  Body  of  Christ. 

However  distinct  therefore,  this  system  may  be 
from  that  of  Rationalism,  it  touches  upon  it  in  some 
important  particulars.  Those  who  maintain  it  are 
not  conscious,  undoubtedly,  of  the  least  intention 
of  derogating  from  the  reality  of  Our  Lord's  Media- 
tion. Yet  they  are  sometimes  found  to  borrow 
arguments,  and  derive  co-operation  from  quarters 


CONCLUSION.  287 

with  which  they  ought  to  have  no  sympathy.  And 
since  they  deny  that  grace  is  always  bestowed  by 
God  in  Holy  Baptism,  there  is  danger  lest  His 
casual  and  uncertain  action  should  be  confounded 
with  that  general  agency  of  the  Creative  Power,  the 
times  and  laws  whereof  it  is  impossible  to  restrict. 
For  those  who  deny  Divine  help  to  mean  any  thing 
more  than  that  activity  of  the  created  mind,  which 
may  ultimately  be  referred  to  the  workmanship  of 
its  Creator  (thus  overthrowing  the  whole  scheme 
of  Mediation,)  yet  allow  that  this  activity  may  dis- 
play itself  simultaneously  with  the  exhibition  of 
sacraments,  as  well  as  at  any  other  period  (p.  136.) 
The  only  security  against  such  misunderstanding,  is 
the  full  admission  of  the  Church's  doctrine ;  the 
avowal,  namely,  that  a  spiritual  gift  is  bestowed 
upon  all  infants  through  that  act,  whereby  they  are 
taken  out  of  the  line  of  Adam  and  grafted  into  the 
line  of  Christ.  So  that  the  opposition  which  is 
founded  upon  the  first  or  Rationalistic  principle — 
upon  the  alleged  inefficacy,  that  is,  of  Baptism,  or 
upon  the  unreasonableness  of  expecting  material 
means  to  involve  a  spiritual  effect — is  not  unfre- 
quently  countenanced  by  those,  whose  objections 
are  founded  on  a  professedly  religious  basis  (p.  134.) 
For  while  these  last  go  beyond  the  Rationalistic 
system  in  allowing  that  some  infants  receive  grace 
in  Baptism,  they  agree  with  it  in  falling  short  of  the 
Church's  doctrine,  that  grace  is  bestowed  upon  all. 
The  alleged  ground  upon  which  this  second 
counter-system  is  rested,  is  that  certain  conditions 
are  requisite,  where  infant  Baptism  is  to  have  its 
due  effect.  These  conditions  are  stated  by  Mr. 
Goode  to  be  either  a  sentence  of  election  on  the 


2S  J  CONCLUSION. 

part  of  God,  or  the  prevision  of  faith  and  repent- 
ance in  the  child,  or,  finally,  the  character  of  its 
parents.  It  is  not  possible  to  adduce  any  express 
words,  either  of  Holy  Scripture  or  of  the  Church, 
in  which  it  is  stated  that  such  qualifications  are 
required  by  infants.  But  the  analogy  of  adult 
Baptism  suggests  the  consideration,1  that  since 
this  rite  implies  both  a  giver  and  a  receiver,  its 
efficacy  may  possibly  be  invalidated  by  question- 
ing the  intention  of  the  one,  or  the  fitness  of  the 
other.  And,  further,  since  the  present  condition 
of  the  infant  receiver  affords  no  ground  on  which 
exceptions  can  be  built,  those  who  desire  to  dis- 
criminate the  qualifications  of  one  infant  from 
those  of  another,  are  led  to  push  their  inquiries 
forward  into  its  future  life,  or  back  into  the  cir- 
cumstances of  its  parentage.  Such  is  the  history 
of  those  qualifications  for  infant  Baptism,  the  in- 
troduction of  which  Mr.  Goode  states  to  be  the 
fundamental  principle  of  his  work.  The  reader 
shall  be  reminded  what  qualification  for  infant 
Baptism  is  allowed  by  the  Church — and  on  what 
grounds  the  others  have  been  asserted  to  be  in- 
admissible. 

The  intention  of  the  Giver  of  grace  is  held  by 
the  Church  to  be  sufficiently  expounded  by  His 
actions.  To  suppose  that  God  sanctions  the  min- 
istration of  Baptism  to  infants  as  a  means  of  join- 
ing them  to  the  Body  of  Christ,  while  by  a  secret 

1  So  Mr  Gorham  says,  "  the  unconditional  efficacy  of  Baptism, 
when  rightly  administered,  was  the  point  enforced  by  the  Bish- 
op ;"  "  the  conditional  efficacy  of  that  Sacrament  as  dependent 
on  due  reception,  was  the  doctrine  defended  by  myself. ' — (In- 
troduction,]), xxiv.) 


CONCLUSION.  289 

Decree  He  incapacitates  those  on  whom  the  bless- 
ing is  bestowed  from  profiting  by  his  bounty,  is 
incompatible  not  only  with  His  mercy  but  with 
His  truth.  Such  a  supposition  was  rejected,  as 
we  have  seen,  even  by  Divines  who  had  been 
delegates  at  Dort,  as  rendering  the  tenet  of  Repro- 
bation too  revolting,  and  outdoing  the  rigors  of 
Fatalism  itself  {p.  261.)  And  the  Church  pro- 
nounces against  it,  by  declaring  to  the  friends  of 
every  child  ;  "  Doubt  ye  not  therefore,  but  earnestly 
believe,  that  He  will  likewise  favourably  receive 
this  present  infant"  (p.  83.) 

From  this  condition  of  "  a  previous  sentence 
of  election,"  which  Mr.  Goode  himself  virtually 
abandons  (p.  268,)  we  turn  to  the  other  party  in 
Baptism — namely,  the  receiver  of  grace.  What 
qualifications  can  the  child  possess,  as  fitting  it  to 
be  the  receiver  of  Baptism  ? 

Now  the  main  difference  between  the  Church's 
system,  and  that  which  Mr.  Goode  opposes  to  it, 
is  that  according  to  the  first  the  child's  qualifica- 
tion is  its  present  state  ;  according  to  the  second, 
either  its  future  condition  or  the  character  of  its 
parents.  The  child's  present  condition  is  simply 
its  possession  of  that  corrupt  nature,  which  it  in- 
herits from  our  common  parent.  And  this  is  all 
which  the  Church  requires  as  its  qualification  for 
Baptism  (p.  66.)  So  soon  as  the  individual  re- 
sponsibility is  able  either  to  oppose  God's  grace 
or  to  accept  it,  she  adds  such  conditions  as  grow 
out  of  this  power.  In  respect  to  infants  she  adds 
none.  And  the  fact  that  she  expresses  such  con- 
ditions in  the  case  of  adults,  instead  of  showing,  as 
Mr.  Goode  supposes,  that  she  designed  them  to  be 
25 


290  CONCLUSION. 

implied  in  the  case  of  infants,  is  a  clear  proof  that 
in  the  latter  case  she  employs  none,  because  she 
designs  that  none  should  be  employed  (p.  74, 
212.)  She  does  not  bestow  Baptism,  indeed, 
where  there  is  no  hope  of  a  Christian  education  ; 
not  however  because  such  children  are  incapable 
of  receiving  the  gift,  but  because  they  must  be  ex- 
pected to  profane  it.  All  this  is  evident,  not  only 
by  reference  to  her  more  extended  services,  but 
especially  from  that  office  which  is  provided  for 
cases  of  emergency,  in  which,  therefore  none  but 
essential  particulars  are  included  (p.  113.) 

Such  is  the  Church's  system  ;  a  system  which 
considers  all  infants  who  inherit  the  nature  of  the 
old  Adam,  to  be  fit  candidates  for  the  blessings 
of  the  new.  Now  for  this  qualification  Mr.  Goode 
has  substituted  two  others — one  drawn  from  a 
prevision  of  the  child's  future  conduct,  the  other 
from  the  character  of  its  parents.  It  has  been 
shown,  however,  that  the  words  of  our  Catechism 
were  not  designed,  as  Mr.  Goode  imagines,  to  af- 
ford any  countenance  to  the  first  of  these  condi- 
tions ;  neither  is  it  possible  that  they  should 
countenance  it.  For  this  condition  has  been 
proved  to  be  distinctly  Pelagian  in  its  tendency ; 
and  therefore  to  be  opposed  to  the  whole  system 
of  the  Church  (p.  105.)  There  remains  the  other 
condition,  derived  from  the  character  of  the  pa- 
rents. And  this  likewise  has  been  shown  to  be 
incompatible  with  the  system  of  Christianity,  and 
to  militate  against  its  cardinal  principle,  the  Me- 
diation of  Christ  (p.  272.)  So  that  both  these 
conditions  are  as  inconsistent  with  the  principles 
of  revealed,  as  that  which  is  adduced  from  God's 


CONCLUSION.  291 

absolute  decrees,  with  those  of  natural  religion. 
And  the  qualification  which  is  rested  on  the  faith 
of  the  parents  is  no  less  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
the  Church  than  to  its  doctrines.  For  to  act  upon 
it  would  be  a  direct  infraction  of  Canons,  which 
the  Church's  Courts  neither  would  nor  could  al- 
low (p.  98,  276.) 

There  remains  no  alternative,  then,  but  the  ac- 
ceptance of  that  more  tolerant  course,  wThich  the 
Church  Catholic  has  ever  pursued.  And  this  is 
not  less  accordant  with  the  best  feelings  of  men, 
than  with  the  revelation  of  God.  For  what  so 
much  commends  infancy  even  to  human  aid  as  its 
helplessness  ?  And  what,  therefore,  can  more 
fitly  commend  it  to  His  pity,  whose  mercy  is  over 
all  His  works?"  Why,  then,  should  we  doubt  that 
their  necessities  are  our  best  plea  in  bringing  our 
infants  to  the  Good  Shepherd? 


EXTRACTS, 


Translated   frox   Dn.  Samuel  Ward's  "Determina- 

TIONES    TlIEOLOGICTE,"   PUBLISHED     BT    SeTH     WaRD,  U.    D., 

LoxdOxV,  1658,  p.  44-47. 

Sacraments  confer  grace  on  those  who  place  no  bar. 

*  *  #  #  * 

We  say  that  Sacraments  confer  grace  in  the  above  mentioned 
manner  on  those  who  place  no  bar,  whereby  we  mean  on  all 
who  place  no  bar  against  them.  That  this  may  be  understood, 
wo  must  say  what  would  be  a  bar.  This  term  the  Schoolmen 
took  from  St.  Augustin,  who  says,  in  his  23d  Epistle,  that  an 
infant  receives  the  Sacrament  of  faith  to  his  salvation,  if  he 
does  not  oppose  to  faith  the  bar  of  any  contradictory  thought : 
as  for  instance  an  act  of  unbelief,  or  of  contempt,  or  of  indiffer- 
ence. The  Schoolmen,  following  St.  Augustin,  understand  by 
a  bar  any  mortal  sin,  which  opposes  saving  grace ;  whether  it 
be  the  refusal  of  consent,  or  dissent ;  whether  it  be  the  not 
opening  the  heart  when  grace  is  given,  or  the  shutting  it — as 
Bradwardin  explains  the  matter. — (J)c  Causa  Dei.  ii.  32.) 

When  we  say,  then,  that  Sacraments  confer  grace  on  those  who 
do  not  place  a  bar,  we  do  not  say  that  Sacraments  confer  grace 
absolutely  on  every  receiver,  inasmuch  as  men  who  are  indis- 
posed and  unworthy  are  not  meet  subjects,  and  therefore,  by 
reason  of  their  state,  not  capable  of  Divine  grace.  The  confer- 
ring, therefore,  of  grace  by  Sacraments  must  be  conditional,  and 
depend  upon  a  certain  law;  neither  can  there  be  a  more  suit- 
able condition  laid  down,  than  that  no  bar  should  be  found  in 
the  recipient — nothing,  that  is,  which  withstands  God's  grace. 
There  are  two  ways  in  which  sin  puts  a  bar;  either  by  the 
commission  of  an  offence,  or  by  the  omission  of  a  bounden  ami 
possible  duty.  From  which  it  may  be  understood  what  it  is 
not  to  place  a  bar  to  the  Sacraments.  A  man  is  said  not  la 
place  a  bar,  either — first,  By  not  opposing  a  fresh  sin,  when  he 
might  oppose  it;  secondly,  By  preparing  himself  properly  for  the 
reception  of  the  Sacrament,  and  removing  hindrances;  thirdly, 
By  being  simply  negative  so  far  as  concerns  any  previous  dis- 

25*  (293) 


294  p;xtracts. 


positions,  in  case  it  is  neither  in  his  power  to  commit  any  new 
sin,  nor  to  prepare  himself  to  be  a  fit  and  worthy  receiver. 

In  the  third  of  these  ways  infants  place  no  bar;  as  well  as 
all  those,  who  are  capahle  of  grace,  and  yet  cannot  act  as  moral 
agents,  from  the  deficiency  of  their  understanding,  and  from  not 
possessing  the  power  of  will.  Their  condition  makes  it  impos- 
sible that  they  should  oppose  a  bar ;  and  therefore  we  say,  that 
on  them  Sacraments  infallibly  confer  grace. 

Every  one  who  comes  to  the  Sacrament  fitly  and  rightly  pre- 
pared, may  be  said  in  (he  second  way  to  place  no  bar. 

The  first  mode — that  is,  the  not  opposing  a  new  sin,  when 
one  might  oppose  it — is  not  sufficient  to  obtain  the  eflect  of  a 
Sacrament  for  its  adult  receivers  For  not  to  opppose  a  bar  by 
abstaining  from  fresh  sin  is  not  sufficient;  but  a  right  disposi- 
tion, and  positive  preparation  is  required  to  render  an  adult  a 
lit  receiver.  It  is  most  material  to  observe,  that  though  the 
death  of  Christ  is  the  most  powerful  and  efficacious  remedy 
against  every  kind  of  sin;  yet,  that  unless  taken  and  applied,  it 
is  profitless.  And  this  application  is  not  made  by  an  adult 
receiver  of  the  Sacrament,  unless  he  comes  fitly  prepared  to 
these  Holy  Mysteries.  And  that  any  one  may  be  prepared, 
there  need  various  dispositions — a  belief  in  the  Catholic  Faith, 
the  hope  of  pardon,  fear  of  punishment,  sorrow  for  sin,  purpose 
of  amendment,  intent  to  lead  ft  new  life — all  which  are  things 
which  prepare  the  receiver.  There  must  also  be  a  true  and 
living  faith  in  Christ  the  Mediator  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
seeing  that  He  is  the  only  medium  whereby  the  redemption  of 
Christ  is  applied  instrumentally  for  the  remission  of  sins.  On 
a  man  who  is  thus  prepared,  by  virtue  of  the  Divine  promise 
there  is  infallibly  conferred  grace ;  as  well  to  secure  to  him 
the  righteousness  of  faith,  as  to  increase  and  seal  inherent 
righteousness. 

After  these  previous  explanations,  our  Thesis  may  be  con- 
veniently proved  by  some  conclusions,  both  in  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptism,  and  in  that  of  the  Eucharist. 

Our  first  conclusion  is  this;  as  infants  place  no  bar.  Baptism 
always  confers  upon  them  the  first  measure  of  grace,  namely, 
the  forgiveness  of  Original  Sin.     The  proofs  are  : — 

First — Every  infant  is  conceived  and  born  in  sin,  as  David 
confesses  about  himself,  Ps.  li.  7;  Job  xiv.  4  ;  Eph.  ii.  3  ;  tli.tt 
is,  he  is  subject  to  Original  Sin.  But  when  a  child  of  this  sort 
has  been  received  by  Baptism,  a  promise  of  remission  of  sins  is 


EXTRACTS.  295 

made  to  him ;  Acts  ii.  38,  39.  Here  a  promise  of  forgiveness  of 
sins  is  made  to  the  baptized  seed  of  the  Israelites ;  as  to  the  cir- 
cumcised seed  of  pious  men  was  given  a  promise  of  peculiar 
protection,  in  which  was  involved  the  promise  of  forgiveness. 
You  therefore  visibly  perform  the  Sacrament  of  initiation ;  it 
applies  and  confers,  on  the  part  of  God,  the  real  thing,  which  is 
promised — namely,  grace  for  the  remission  of  Original  Sin.  The 
infant  receiver,  on  his  part,  makes  no  opposition,  nor  can  make 
any  ;  so  as  to  prevent  him  from  being  a  capable  suscipicnt  of 
the  remission  which  is  exhibited  and  conferred.  Therefore  on 
infants  as  putting  no  bar,  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  infallibly 
confers  grace  for  the  remission  of  Original  Sin. 

Secondly — If  Baptism  is  only  a  sign  of  grace,  and  does  not 
confer  it,  nothing  is  given  to  those  who  die  in  infancy,  nor  on 
non-elect  infants  who  survive  is  any  thing  ever  conferred  by  vir- 
tue of  the  Sacrament.  To  them,  therefore,  it  would  be  nothing 
but  a  naked  and  inefficacious  sign,  which  ought  not  to  be  assert- 
ed. For  either  Baptism  confers  grace  for  the  remission  of 
Original  Guilt,  so  far  as  no  impediment  is  opposed  on  the  part 
of  the  receiver,  or  it  is  possible  to  assign  some  more  fitting  con- 
dition, by  his  legitimate  compliance  with  which  it  would  be  cifi- 
cacious  to  him.  But  it  is  impossible  to  assign  any  more  fitting 
condition,  which  can  be  complied  with  by  those  parties,  who,  from 
want  of  reason  and  will  (of  which  this  age  is  incapable,)  are  un- 
able to  do  any  thing  as  moral  agents.  Hence  Augustin  most  truly 
says  (Ep.  xxiii.,)  that  infants  receive  the  Sacrament  of  faith, 
i.  e.  Baptism,  to  their  salvation,  if  they  do  not  oppose  against 
faith  the  bar  of  hostile  thought,  or  of  any  evil  action.  But  an 
infant  cannot  oppose  the  bar  of  evil  thought,  or  an  evil  action, 
since  it  can  neither  think  nor  act  with  any  freedom.  In  its 
case,  therefore,  because  it  places  no  bar,  Baptism  is  sure  of  hav- 
ing its  proper  efficacy,  so  far  as  concerns  the  conferring  grace 
for  the  remission  of  Original  Guilt. 

Thirdly — God  has  ordered  the  infants  of  the  faithful  to  be  bap- 
tized under  the  new  Covenant,  as  under  the  old  he  ordered  them 
to  be  circumcised ;  and  to  this  command  he  has  annexed  the 
promise  of  remitting  their  original  guilt,  which  is  the  first  and 
main  benefit,  whereof  an  infant  is  capable ;  and  so  much  the 
very  symbol  of  ablution  expresses.  But  God  does  not  order 
any  to  be  baptized,  except  those  who  arc  capable  of  the  benefits 
bi"  Baptism,  and  who  need  them:  and  seeing  that  infants  are 
incapable  of  opposing  any  bar,  and  need  no  predisposition,  they 


296  EXTRACTS. 

are  fit  to  receive  the  thing,  which  baptismal  ablution  expresses. 
What  is  to  hinder  this  Sacrament  therefore  from  being  a  true 
sign  of  the  grace  which  it  expresses;  why  should  it  not  be  a 
real  exhibition  of  the  purpose,  which  is  intended  on  the  part  of 
God,  and  proceed  without  fail  to  the  completion  of  its  purpose  ? 
Therefore,  when  an  infant  is  baptized  according  to  the  Divine 
appointment,  the  thing  which  is  expressed  by  the  Sacrament  is 
regularly  conferred  upon  it ;  and  this  thing  is  not  merely  the 
giving  a  pledge  of  the  forgiveness  of  original  guilt,  when  it  shall 
have  grown  up,  and  become  capable  of  faith  and  penitence  ;  but 
it  is  the  actual  application  of  the  first  remission  of  original  guilt 
(before  unforgiven,)  which  is  bestowed  in  the  Sacramental  ablu- 
tion itself. 

Fourthly — The  ordinary  media  of  applying  the  merits  of  Christ 
are  no  other  than  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments.  But  the 
Word  does  not  apply  the  merits  of  Christ  to  an  infant,  who  is 
brought  to  be  baptized,  because  the  Word  cannot  have  its  effect 
till  it  is  understood ;  neither  is  there  any  Sacrament,  except 
Baptism,  which  is  applicable  to  infants.  Either,  therefore,  no 
ordinary  medium  is  provided  on  the  part  of  God,  for  the  applica- 
tion of  Christ's  merits  to  unresisting  infants,  or  the  Sacrament 
of  Baptism  is  such  a  medium;  seeing  that  no  other  ordinary 
medium  on  the  part  of  God  is  revealed  in  Scripture.  On  infants, 
therefore,  since  they  place  no  bar  against  it,  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptism  infallibly  confers  grace  for  the  remission  of  original 
sin. 

Fifthly — Supposing  that  infants,  not  placing  a  bar,  do  not 
receive  grace  for  the  remission  of  original  sin  from  Baptism,  it 
might  seem  that  God  does  not  act  seriously  and  truly  with  the 
recipient,  whom  He  wills  and  orders  to  be  baptized.  Whereas 
a  new  covenant  was  made  with  the  whole  human  race,  God 
i  would  seem  to  be  wanting  to  its  signs  and  Sacraments,  though 
the  same  were  ordered  and  were  rightly  administered ;  and 
(which  it  were  an  impiety  to  suppose)  not  to  stand  to  His  pro- 
mises. Wherefore  it  must  be  said,  that  God,  whom  no  impedi- 
ment withstands  on  the  part  of  the  receiver  (no  resistance,  that 
is,  from  his  free-agency,)  is  not  wanting  to  His  own  appoint- 
ment, but  confers  the  remission  of  original  guilt  on  the  baptized 
infant  Hence  Augustin  says,  Ep.  clvii.,  "The  remission  of 
sins,  even  in  the  Baptism  of  infants,  is  no  unreal  process,  no 
matter  of  words,  but  an  actual  fact."  I  say  nothing  about  the 
consent  of  Antiquity  in  this  matter,  about  which  it  were  crimi- 


EXTRACTS.  297 


nal  to  doubt.  I  will  only  adduce  Prosper's  statement :  "  if  any 
one  says  that  the  grace  conferred  in  Baptism  does  not  take  away 
original  sin  in  those  who  are  not  predestinated,  he  is  no 
Catholic." 


All  baptized  infants  are  undoubtedly  justified.1  p.  50-53. 
*  #  #  *     -        •  *  * 

.  .  .  .  It  is  further  inquired,  whether  all  infants  rightly 
baptized  are  undoubtedly  justified.  Here  some  very  learned 
theologians  hesitate  ;  inasmuch  as  they  restrict  this  effect  of  jus- 
tification from  original  sin  to  elect  infants.  We  make  two  as- 
sertions — first,  that  all  infants,  rightly  baptized,  who  die  in  their 
infancy,  are  unquestionably  justified. 

This  is  laid  down  by  the  Church  of  England  in  her  Ritual ; 
in  the  Rubric,  which  speaks  of  the  delay  of  Confirmation.  Lest 
any  <<  man  shall  think  that  any  detriment  shall  come  to  chil- 
dren by  deferring  of  their  Confirmation,  he  shall  know  for  truth, 
that  it  is  certain,  by  God's  word,  that  children  being  baptized, 
have  all  things  necessary  for  their  salvation,  and  be  undoubtedly 
saved."  Now,  here  it  is  said  that  infants  who  are  baptized  have 
all  things  necessary  for  their  salvation  (necessary,  that  is,  in 
the  infant  state  ;)  and  are  undoubtedly  saved.    This  must  mean 

1  This  proposition  does  not  affirm  more  than  the  Homily  of 
Salvation,  to  which  we  are  referred  by  the  Xlth  Art.,  as  explaining, 
the  nature  of  Justification.  "  Our  office  is  not  to  pass  the  time 
of  this  present  life  unfruitfully  and  idly,  after  that  we  are  bap- 
tized  or  justified.''''  Mr.  Goode  would  escape  from  the  force  of 
this  passage  on  the  ground  that  it  is  possible  to  assign  "  another 
sense"  "for  the  word  'or'"  But  though  the  word  'or' 
is  used  to  indicate  both  identity  and  contrast,  yet  the  context  al- 
ways indicates  which  it  means.  Again,  if  it  does  not  mean  the 
first,  it  must  mean  the  second.  So  that  if  Cranmer  did  not 
mean  to  affirm  that  which  his  words  naturally  imply,  he  must 
have  designed  to  say  that  there  were  two  ways  of  entering  into 
a  state  of  grace,  one  being  Holy  Baptism,  the  other  that  which 
was  to  be  employed  in  the  caso  of  those  who  were  not  baptized, 
namely,  Justification. 


EXTRACTS. 

of  course,  if  they  die  as  children,  for  it  is  certain  that  many  who 
have  been  baptized  and  grow  up  are  not  saved.  These  expres- 
sions, as  they  occur  in  our  present  Ritual,  are  taken,  word  for 
word,  from  the  Ritual  which  was  published  a.  d.  1552,  in  the 
fifth  year  of  Edward  VT. ;  but  they  are  still  more  plainly  put  in 
the  first  revision,  in  the  second  year  of  Edward,  a.  m  1549, 
which  may  be  found  in  Bucer's  Scripta  Anglicana.  "  And  that 
no  man  shall  think  that  any  detriment  shall  come  to  children  by 
deferring  of  their  confirmation :  he  shall  know  for  truth, '  that  it 
is  certain  by  God's  word,  that  children  being  baptized  (if  they 
depart  out  of  this  life  in  their  infancy,)  are  undoubtedly  saved." 
Now  this  is  nearly  the  same  statement  which  was  made  in  the 
synodal  book,  issued  by  the  authority  of  the  whole  English 
clergy,  a.  d.  1537,  called  the  "  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man," 
in  the  Chapter  on  the  Sacrament  of  Confirmation.  «  It  is  not 
to  be  thought  that  there  is  any  such  necessity  of  Confirmation  of 
infants,  but  that  they  being  baptized,  and  dying  innocent  before 
they  be  confirmed,  shall  be  assured  to  attain  everlasting  life, 
and  salvation  by  the  effect  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  before 
received."  Nearly  the  same  thing  is  to  be  found  in  another 
book,  called  the  "Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  which  was 
published  six  years  afterwards,  by  the  authority  of  Henry  VIII., 
[i.  e,  the  necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition,  &c]  In  the 
"Homily  of  Salvation,"  published  1547,  in  the  first  year  of  Ed- 
ward VI.,  occurs  the  statement,  '<  that  infants,  being  baptized, 
and  dying  in  their  infancy,  are  by  this  sacrifice  washed  from 
their  sins,  brought  to  God's  favour,  and  made  His  children,  and 
inheritors  of  His  kingdom  of  heaven." 

From  the  passages  which  have  been  quoted  we  see,  that, 
according  to  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  it 
is  clear  by  God's  Word,  that  infants  who  are  rightly  baptized 
have  all  things  necessary  for  their  salvation,  i.  e.,  in  the  state  of 
infancy ;  and  if  they  die  in  that  state,  must  undoubtedly  be 
saved.  Now,  when  our  Churcn  says  that  the  salvation  of  such 
infants  is  certain  by  God's  Word,  much  more  must  she  intend 
to  affirm  the  same  thing  respecting  their  justification,  by  the 
removal  of  the  guilt  of  original  sin,  since  there  can  be  no  salva- 
tion, unless  original  guilt  has  first  been  done  away. 

This  justification  of  baptized  infants,  dying  in  that  tender  age, 
stands  on  these  firm  principles.  First — It  rests  on  the  nature. 
of  this  Sacrament,  which  is  the  only  mean,  remedy,  or  Sacra- 
ment appointed  by  God  to  apply  Christ's  merits  to  such  infants, 


EXTRACTS.  299 

for  the  washing  away  of  original  sin.  Either,  therefore,  it  must 
be  held  that  Baptism  is  not  by  God's  appointment  a  sufficient 
remedy  to  those  whose  only  remedy  it  is,  which  is  an  intolerable 
supposition  ;  or  else  that  it  is  an  efficacious  Sacrament,  where- 
by  in  such  infants  original  sin  is  done  away. 

.  .  .  Thirdly — God  always  works  efficaciously  in  His  Sacra- 
ments in  these  cases,  in  which  the  receiver,  being  unable  to 
give  any  positive  assent,  opposes  no  obstacle.  Hence  Augustin 
says  that  an  infant  receives  the  Sacrament  of  Faith,  i.  e.  Bap- 
tism, to  his  salvation,  if  he  does  not  oppose  to  faith  the  obstacle 
of  opposing  thought  (Ep.  23.)  But  infants  cannot  oppose  such 
a  bar :  in  them  therefore  Baptism  is  sure  to  be  efficacious  for 
the  removal  of  original  sin.  Let  us  see  what  was  the  sense  of 
Antiquity  in  this  matter 

This  was  our  first  assertion  :  our  second  is,  that  all  infants, 
even  those  who  are  non-elect,  and  who  will  ultimately  perish, 
if  duly  baptized  in  their  infancy,  are  freed  in  Baptism  from  the 
guilt  of  original  sin. 

The  grounds  of  this  assertion  are — first,  the  nature  of  Sacra- 
ments ;  which  by  Divine  appointment  are  efficacious  signs,  and 
so  efficacious,  that  where  no  impediment  is  opposed  by  the  re- 
ceiver, they  have  their  effect,  according  to  the  receiver's  capa- 
city  

Secondly — The  same  thing  is  shown  by  the  words  of  admi- 
nistration, which  the  Minister  pronounces  in  the  present  tense, 
while  he  is  baptizing.  He  says,  « I  dip,"  or*,  "I  baptize  thee 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;"  from  which  it  is  obvious  that  Baptism  really  effects  that 

which  the  Minister  pronounces Fourthly — 

Sacraments  are  rightly  called  moral2  instruments,  and  organs 
which  exhibit  the  grace  which  they  signify.  How,  then,  shall 
Baptism  be  called  an  instrument  of  grace,  when  used  respecting 
infants,  if  when  it  is  actually  used  and  applied  to  them,  and  is 

2  On  the  statement  that  Sacraments  are  moral  instruments, 
Mr.  Goode,  quotes  a  passage  from  Estius,  which  is  referred 
to  also  by  Dr.  Pusey  ("Scriptural  Views  of  Baptism,"  p.  127, 
1st  Ed.)  Estius  denies  respecting  Sacraments  "  virtutem  ali- 
quam  creatam  eis  incesse  :"  he  maintains  that  "  divinia  virtus 
sacramentis  ad  producendum  gratia?  effectum  certo  et  infallibi- 
ter  ex  Christi  promisione  assistit." — In  Lib.  iv.  Sentent.  Dist. 
i.  n.  5. 


300     *  EXTRACTS. 

not  hindered  of  its  perfect  action  by  any  resistance  derived  from 
the  free-agency  of  the  receiver,  it  yet  fails  to  produce  that  effect 
for  which  by  Divine  appointment  it  was  ordained.  .... 
You  will  say  that  Sacraments  produce  this  effect,  when  they 
are  rightly  used.  Now,  whatever  may  be  the  intention  of  the 
Church,  it  may  be  thought  that  it  is  not  God's  intention  that 
this  remedy  should  be  rightly  applied  to  a  non-elect  infant.  I 
reply,  that  it  is  not  true  that  this  remedy  is  not  rightly  applied 
to  a  non-elect  infant.  I  assert  that  the  Church  rightly  and 
savingly  presents  as  well  elect  as  non-elect  infants  to  Baptism ; 
that  she  does  right  in  washing  both  indiscriminately  in  the 
laver  of  Baptism,  and  that  God  renders  His  appointment  effec- 
tual, so  far  as  the  doing  away  original  sin,  whatever  previous 
decree  may  have  been  passed,  in  all  cases  in  which  opposition 
is  not  made  by  the  receiver's  free  agency.  And  this  I  will 
prove  by  the  consent  of  Antiquity 


THE    END. 


f     J 


